correct as is AIM-120 not tracking and zero AI reaction.

[Kestrel_505]

This was done on the F1 release update. Two bandits at 30K feet hot aspect over the ocean. I was at 35K-38K feet (multiple tests) and shot at 40 miles. The AI were set to rookie with ECM disabled because I like to have fun, other than that nothing was changed. The 120s exited loft and proceeded to not even attempt to maneuver on the targets the bandits did not react at all to the missiles. They didn't even drop chaff. Again, multiple attempts to see if it was just a fluke. Missile flight time was about 80 seconds max from launch to missing the target.

Edit: I maintained TWS lock the entire duration of the missiles flight and never once lost lock.

Edit2: Added track file.

Edit 3 lol: Added track file with me in TWS. Most of my tests were in TWS except for the previous track file which I had to go make because I forgot to save it and I accidently left it in RWS. Same results tho.

Tacview-20220721-102150-DCS-Correct as is.zip.acmi

AIM120 not tracking.trk

AIM120 not tracking TWS.trk

Edited July 21, 2022 by Kestrel_505
Added track files

[Exorcet]

I can't remember what the AIM-120's battery life is, but it might be 80 seconds. If it is then it sounds like the battery is dying before the missile reaches the targets.

[Kestrel_505]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I can't remember what the AIM-120's battery life is, but it might be 80 seconds. If it is then it sounds like the battery is dying before the missile reaches the targets.

So here's the kicker, if I turn chaff completely off on the enemy AI, the maneuver against the missile and the 120 follows them around attempting to kill them so I don't think battery life is the issue here. Launch distance and parameters are the same. I could have sworn the 120 had a 120sec battery life but I'm not sure.

[MARLAN_]

31 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I can't remember what the AIM-120's battery life is, but it might be 80 seconds. If it is then it sounds like the battery is dying before the missile reaches the targets.

They increased it recently, a month or two ago. I forget exactly, I think it's 100 seconds now or so.

[Kestrel_505]

5 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

They increased it recently, a month or two ago. I forget exactly, I think it's 100 seconds now or so.

Sounds about right. Either way though, I am getting real tired of all this missile stuff. I dont want 100% hit probability because that would be boring, but this 120 performance thing is getting ridiculous. It might as well be an AIM120 A

[opps]

FIrst track : You fired AIM-120 in RWS with LTWS. RWS with LTWS is not meant to be used to guiding AIM-120. Use TWS AUTO or STT to support AIM-120.

Second track : You fired AIM-120 in TWS MAN. TWS MAN means You have to adjust radar anntena manualy to maintain tracks. As track shows, radar droped tracks somewhat reasons so your AIM-120 were trashed. Again, use TWS AUTO or STT to support AIM-120.

[Kestrel_505]

2 hours ago, opps said:

FIrst track : You fired AIM-120 in RWS with LTWS. RWS with LTWS is not meant to be used to guiding AIM-120. Use TWS AUTO or STT to support AIM-120.

Second track : You fired AIM-120 in TWS MAN. TWS MAN means You have to adjust radar anntena manualy to maintain tracks. As track shows, radar droped tracks somewhat reasons so your AIM-120 were trashed. Again, use TWS AUTO or STT to support AIM-120.

Okay....well that worked....that worked really well actually. So what is the point of TWS manual and LTWS then?

[Tholozor]

TWS MAN allows you to center the scan volume anywhere on the display if contacts are still being searched (TDC Depress on empty space to center the scan volume at that azimuth).

LTWS is a mode for RWS that allows the pilot to see/designate the underlying (i.e. latent) trackfiles associated with raw hits without having to go STT, as radar-only MSI trackfile HAFUs are not displayed in RWS without it.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Tholozor

[Bankler]

19 hours ago, opps said:

FIrst track : You fired AIM-120 in RWS with LTWS. RWS with LTWS is not meant to be used to guiding AIM-120. Use TWS AUTO or STT to support AIM-120.

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know the details around this? LTWS (at least in DCS) can be used for firing AIM-120. Just tried firing on a target at 20 nm, 60 degrees off boresight, and the missile guided. I got the active countdown and everything. Are there any real technical differences from firing in TWS MAN (except from the differences in the mode themselves, regarding search volume limits and such)?

Edited July 22, 2022 by Bankler

[opps]

1 hour ago, Bankler said:

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know the details around this? LTWS (at least in DCS) can be used for firing AIM-120. Just tried firing on a target at 20 nm, 60 degrees of boresight, and the missile guided. I got the active countdown and everything. Are there any real technical differences from firing in TWS MAN (except from the differences in the mode themselves, regarding search volume limits and such)?

 

F/A-18's MMC always creates and holds track files regardless of radar mode(RWS, TWS, STT). LTWS is just option enable to show track of Target Under Cursor(TUC), L&S.

So theoricaly, AIM-120 can be guided regardless of radar mode because track always exist.

The problem will be quolity of track files, I heared IRL launching AIM-120 in RWS(LTWS) or TWS MAN should switch to TWS AUTO to improve track quolity.

And the reason that there is restriction on scan volume in TWS AUTO/MAN is all about quolity of track files.  

[Bankler]

2 hours ago, opps said:

F/A-18's MMC always creates and holds track files regardless of radar mode(RWS, TWS, STT). LTWS is just option enable to show track of Target Under Cursor(TUC), L&S.

So theoricaly, AIM-120 can be guided regardless of radar mode because track always exist.

The problem will be quolity of track files, I heared IRL launching AIM-120 in RWS(LTWS) or TWS MAN should switch to TWS AUTO to improve track quolity.

And the reason that there is restriction on scan volume in TWS AUTO/MAN is all about quolity of track files.  

Very interesting. Granted the info that you're always supposed to be able to select a trackfile as L&S, (regardless of own radar contribution), I assume that means you should be able to fire an AIM-120 at a datalink contact? Obviously that track quality could be even worse than in RWS, but arguably good enough to point an AMRAAM on a non-maneuvering target until it goes pitbull.

[MARLAN_]

7 hours ago, Bankler said:

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know the details around this? LTWS (at least in DCS) can be used for firing AIM-120. Just tried firing on a target at 20 nm, 60 degrees off boresight, and the missile guided. I got the active countdown and everything. Are there any real technical differences from firing in TWS MAN (except from the differences in the mode themselves, regarding search volume limits and such)?

 

You could employ in RWS with LTWS/TWS MAN, but the manual nature of it is sub optimal, but certainly doable. Modes such as STT, TWS AUTO or TWS SCAN RAID are usually used for employment. Though when launching an AMRAAM out of RWS, the MC should command TWS AUTO, but this isn't implemented in DCS currently. (Other modes will also command TWS AUTO when an AMRAAM is launched, such as TWS BIAS, TWS SCAN RAID, or EXP, though I don't have a source on TWS MAN commanding TWS AUTO, which would seem logical to me, but I haven't seen that specifically)

2 hours ago, Bankler said:

Very interesting. Granted the info that you're always supposed to be able to select a trackfile as L&S, (regardless of own radar contribution), I assume that means you should be able to fire an AIM-120 at a datalink contact? Obviously that track quality could be even worse than in RWS, but arguably good enough to point an AMRAAM on a non-maneuvering target until it goes pitbull.

You could employ on datalink only contacts, your track quality would just be limited by the data rate of incoming information. For example, if you launched with data link only, using a E2/E3 as your offboard source, you'd be looking at a ~10 second delay for their radar sweep, in addition to the AIC link delay which would result in poor track quality (though certainly usable for a non maneuvering target), but for track information coming from another fighter that radar sweep might be as quick as half a second depending on their radar settings, and the F/F link is also significantly quicker (IRL that is, in DCS F/F link is still too slow) which would result in track quality that would be nearly as good as if you were tracking them yourself.

Things like this coupled with A/A tactics would totally eliminate the possibility of notching since you could have 2 fighters (and AIC) providing track data from very different angles. If MSI is ever implemented things such as your FLIR or CIT would also contribute, if you had a FLIR Track on a target, they would not be able to notch you at all.

Note: You still need to supply the mid course updates to the missile yourself even when using target data from offboard sensors. My understanding is mid course updates for an AIM-120C5 requires your radar to be emitting (but not necessarily detecting the target under missile attack). So you couldn't skate early otherwise you'd still be ending support for your missile. Though if you don't provide any mid course updates (or end support), the missile would still be provided the initial target data and fly to the last known intercept as is already modeled in DCS, so you could reasonably employ with radar silenced against a non maneuvering target.

Edited July 22, 2022 by MARLAN_

[raus]

3 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

Though when launching an AMRAAM out of RWS, the MC should command TWS AUTO, but this isn't implemented in DCS currently

Is this something reported/evidence provided to ED?? I would love to see that implemented, true QoL improvement...

[MARLAN_]

43 minutes ago, raus said:

Is this something reported/evidence provided to ED?? I would love to see that implemented, true QoL improvement...

It's in the FRM or 742, I forget which off the top of my head, but 100% in there, and ED references those documents so they have the evidence. Guess it depends if they want to implement it or not.

[raus]

9 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

It's in the FRM or 742, I forget which off the top of my head, but 100% in there, and ED references those documents so they have the evidence. Guess it depends if they want to implement it or not.

Thx for the clarification, much appreciated … @BIGNEWY / @NineLine Is this something on your radar? Could you shed some light about the status (reported/unknown…)? It would be great if this could make it to the dev team. 
 

thanks!!!

[Swift.]

1 hour ago, raus said:

Is this something reported/evidence provided to ED?? I would love to see that implemented, true QoL improvement...

At this point, most every issue with the hornets radar such as this has been reported. Some of them as long ago as 2019. The issue isn't so much the reporting of the bugs or the providing of the evidence. But more, I assume, finding the dev time to wrap up the hornet.