The new RWR bug brings something interesting to attention regarding higher digit Russian SAMs

[July]

I wasn't sure where to post this topic, so if there's a more appropriate place for this discussion feel free to move it as this isn't really a bug report as much as it is a problem with implementation.

As you may know, the RWRs of a few different aircraft are not currently not picking up emitters properly and in some cases, only giving RWR tones when missiles are already in ranges close to terminal phase guidance.

 

 

This issue brings up something more into question, specifically about the SA-11 with the 9S35 guidance radar for now but brings questions about other SAM systems including ones not implemented yet. Is the SA-11 Gadfly capable of launch in modes such as or similar to Track While Scan, only going into a continuous wave (CW) illumination for terminal guidance?

According to publicly available documents, some of the higher digit Russian SAM systems are definitely capable of this including the latest modernization of the SA-11 TELAR tracking radars, the 9S35M (part of SA-17 Grizzly with PESA which is the upgraded SA-11). I'd imagine the version of the viper we have in DCS, F-16CM blk 50 RWR tones were designed with this in mind since it specializes in SEAD/DEAD. In real life, the RWR it has plays different tones at different rates to signify types of tracking radars and their pulsed modes.

So, while the RWR thing in DCS is a bug, the way the bug plays out with the acquisition/tracking radar of the TELARs only giving missile launch warnings in the terminal phase (e.g. the tracking radar going "active" when missile is 3 NM away) could be a real capability. Some SAMs also have radars built into the nose cones but I'm not sure what missiles or what systems have them. This topic could bring future expansion and more realistic implementation of ground based SAM systems including an expansion of current system capabilities.

This is not to say that any of the above have been implemented intentionally in DCS as of yet.

Smarter RWRs likely have the capability that the F-16 RWR has of being able to differentiate different threat modes baked into the software for threat recognition. Not sure how ED would possibly get that kind of information though since I believe this falls into the realm of EW so what we have in DCS, in an aircraft like the F/A-18C are probably approximations.

The above is an excerpt pulled from US Army ODIN TRADOC (approved for public release), corroborated by multiple, publicly available sources.

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/9K37_Buk-M1_(SA-11_Gadfly)_Russian_Medium-Range_Surface-to-Air_Missile_System

Quote

a tracking capability and CW illumination for terminal guidance

This seems to imply that guidance before terminal phase is different, no?

So the question is, are systems such as the SA-11 that we have in DCS (and maybe some other near-peer SAM systems) capable of firing on a tracked (but not CW illuminated!) target before going into a illuminated terminal phase track with semi-active missiles?

If so, will we see this implemented into DCS? If not, why?

Edited March 14, 2023 by July

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, July said:

This issue brings up something more into question, specifically about the SA-11 with the 9S35 guidance radar for now but brings questions about other SAM systems including ones not implemented yet. Is the SA-11 Gadfly capable of launch in modes such as or similar to Track While Scan, only going into a continuous wave (CW) illumination for terminal guidance?[/quote]

The things you are describing were already happening in Vietnam/Korea with SA2s, this isn't news but rather systems gaining more interesting capabilities.

11 hours ago, July said:

This seems to imply that guidance before terminal phase is different, no?

Depends on the system. And also, does it matter?  That's an important question because you as the pilot do not care, all you care about is what the RWR is telling you -and the RWR is trying to figure out every single signal out there and tell you which one it believes to be a threat, and how much of a threat.  And that part we don't know that much about - some stuff about specific systems, but hardly all.

11 hours ago, July said:

So the question is, are systems such as the SA-11 that we have in DCS (and maybe some other near-peer SAM systems) capable of firing on a tracked (but not CW illuminated!) target before going into a illuminated terminal phase track with semi-active missiles?

If so, will we see this implemented into DCS? If not, why?

Is anyone doing any CW illumination whatsoever?  And while I realize you mean 'something like CW', it's actually those details that are very important in order to answer your questions.  Do you know if the system is capable of guiding missiles in some sort of TWS mode?  Would it?  What's the update rate?  Does it even have a TWS mode (the implication being that it is a weapons capable track).

So if you do see anything implemented into DCS it will be because

1. ED has decided to put time into it (See how this one is 1 on the list)
2. There's reasonably solid data on how a system or class of systems works

Edited March 14, 2023 by GGTharos

[July]

Quote

Depends on the system. And also, does it matter? That's an important question because you as the pilot do not care, all you care about is what the RWR is telling you -and the RWR is trying to figure out every single signal out there and tell you which one it believes to be a threat, and how much of a threat. And that part we don't know that much about - some stuff about specific systems, but hardly all.

Of course it depends on the system, that much should be obvious. I wasn't trying to bring into question the way how more modern RWRs are appromixated in DCS. It was a lead-in to how RWRs could potentially be changed to reflect any new info and/or changes that come from having this discussion regarding expanded SAM system capabilities such as TWS weapons launch RWR indication behavior.

In DCS, there are only three "steps" of SAM radars, reflected by our RWRs, only one of which will have actual missile guidance.

Step 1: Target Search

Step 2: Target Acquisition/Target Track

Step 3: Missile Guidance/Illuminate

Any SAM system in DCS, will not fire during the Track phase. This is reflected in our current RWRs when receiving Mud (Search), Mud Spike (Track), and Singer (Illuminate) tones and comparing them to the sites themselves, visually.

The reason why this should matter to us as pilots is because there should be in theory, no way for an RWR to decide whether or not that there has been a missile launch and is being guided without treating all TWS indications as missile launch warnings. Unless if that's how that works IRL (I would be surprised if that's really how it works), we as the pilots should have to respect these kinds of threats according to their potential capabilities during the Track phase based on RWR indications.

When being spiked by a SAM (i.e. Mud Spike, not Singer) it currently doesn't imply any kind of SAM launch because that's just how it's implemented in DCS at the moment due to what I believe, are undermodeled radar systems.

I understand that the RWR does all of the signal and target sorting. If an increase in SAM system capabilities were to be introduced similarly to their IRL counterparts, we would still only need the same three approximations for the RWRs that we have in DCS. Whether or not a TWS-like mode falls into the "missile launch" category is based on whatever can be gleaned from information ED has on hand.

Quote

Is anyone doing any CW illumination whatsoever?

Yes, that's how most semi-active missiles are guided. Whether or not this is all the way up and through the initial launch, mid-course, into the terminal guidance phase will depend on the system and the missile.

Quote

And while I realize you mean 'something like CW', it's actually those details that are very important in order to answer your questions. Do you know if the system is capable of guiding missiles in some sort of TWS mode? Would it? What's the update rate? Does it even have a TWS mode (the implication being that it is a weapons capable track).

There is only one detail that is important here with our approximated RWRs. Do these systems even have a TWS mode capable of weapon tracks? The answer to that is an extremely probable, yes, depending on the system. Details like the update rate, specific band, wavelength, etc are not as important and do not need to be modeled since you said it yourself best. We only care about what the RWR is telling us, not how it figures out what to tell us. 

Quote

 

So if you do see anything implemented into DCS it will be because

 

ED has decided to put time into it (See how this one is 1 on the list)

 

Please don't be sarcastic. This topic is not meant to be a jab at ED or at my own efforts, that I will accept, might not even be acknowledged. This is a longshot at improving SAM systems that exist in DCS that could also lay groundwork for other systems added in the future.

Edited March 15, 2023 by July

[GGTharos]

4 hours ago, July said:

The reason why this should matter to us as pilots is because there should be in theory, no way for an RWR to decide whether or not that there has been a missile launch and is being guided without treating all TWS indications as missile launch warnings. Unless if that's how that works IRL (I would be surprised if that's really how it works), we as the pilots should have to respect these kinds of threats according to their potential capabilities during the Track phase based on RWR indications.

What TWS launches?  Who or what is launching anything in TWS or any mode resembling that?   There are significant constraints imposed on the use of anything that resembles TWS performed using mechanical radars (necessarily with mechanically scanned antennae) where electronically steered antennae don't need to use anything resembling TWS at all in this case.   So again, which threats are doing this?

4 hours ago, July said:

When being spiked by a SAM (i.e. Mud Spike, not Singer) it currently doesn't imply any kind of SAM launch because that's just how it's implemented in DCS at the moment due to what I believe, are undermodeled radar systems.

Guidance traditionally requires the injection of some form of guidance signal:  This can be interrupted CW illumination (CWI), coded signal for good old STT or missile datalink.  Non-guiding track won't have that embedded as it isn't necessary.

4 hours ago, July said:

I understand that the RWR does all of the signal and target sorting. If an increase in SAM system capabilities were to be introduced similarly to their IRL counterparts, we would still only need the same three approximations for the RWRs that we have in DCS. Whether or not a TWS-like mode falls into the "missile launch" category is based on whatever can be gleaned from information ED has on hand.

Which capabilities for which SAM?  Do you know how those are implemented in the weapon system?

4 hours ago, July said:

Details like the update rate, specific band, wavelength, etc are not as important and do not need to be modeled since you said it yourself best. We only care about what the RWR is telling us, not how it figures out what to tell us. 

Yes, but knowing this lets you put your modeled transmission in the proper class.   Then you get into other interesting discussions like, can this RWR cover that frequency range which leads to figuring out which historical equipment do you really have on both ends.

4 hours ago, July said:

Please don't be sarcastic. This topic is not meant to be a jab at ED or at my own efforts, that I will accept, might not even be acknowledged. This is a longshot at improving SAM systems that exist in DCS that could also lay groundwork for other systems added in the future.

Then I would suggest that there are much, much more interesting things improve would have a much larger effect than trying to figure out which tiny number of SAMs beyond AEGIS and NASAMs have anything like a 'silent launch and guide' capability. 

• Constant target re-prioritization
• Track memory and engagement logic based on this memeory (ie. is this guy just flying circles to run you out of missiles?  quit shooting or shorten engagement range in that sector)
• Have at least a manually settable AOR for the SAM (And other entities) beyond which targets are deprioritized
• Allow SAMs to flash their search radars, don't be 'always on'
• Shoot and scoot tactics
• Decoys
• ECM countermeasures including use of EO to guide

[July]

8 hours ago, GGTharos said:

What TWS launches?  Who or what is launching anything in TWS or any mode resembling that?   There are significant constraints imposed on the use of anything that resembles TWS performed using mechanical radars (necessarily with mechanically scanned antennae) where electronically steered antennae don't need to use anything resembling TWS at all in this case.   So again, which threats are doing this?

Yes, the more modern SAM systems using PESA have good enough resolution and tracking that they don't need to actually enter a distinguishable CWI. I agree with you that mechanically steered arrays were significantly less performant compared to their PESA counterparts which is likely why they required multiple types of radars for the different phases of engagements. This is not to say that it could not be done. Now with PESAs, They use Track Via Missile (TVM) guidance by means of radio or datalink CLOS which is stated to have fire control and missile guidance capability during the search phase for midcourse updates and terminal guidance.

 

MIM-104 Patriot A-F

https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_american_missile_system_vehicle_uk/patriot_mim-104_surface-to-air_defense_missile_data_sheet_specifications_information_description.html

 

SA-10A/B and by extension, SA-20A/B (Gargoyle continues to use upgraded variants of the Flap Lid, NATO reporting name: Tomb Stone), and SA-21 (Upgraded Flap Lid,  NATO reporting name: Grave Stone)

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300P_(SA-10_Grumble)_Russian_8x8_Long-Range_Surface-to-Air_Missile_System

 

SA-11/SA-17

The CWI function was developed and included at the time for backwards compatibiltiy with the 1SB4M missile seekers found on the missiles of the SA-6 system.

By means of PESA on the newer SA-17, it likely still uses CWI for terminal guidance. Whether or not it uses midcourse TVM in the SA-11/SA-17 is up for debate.

 

This is by no means, a comprehensive list. It may also contain inaccuracies since official documents are incredibly scarce, and these are secondhand sources.

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html#mozTocId158983

Quote

Guidance traditionally requires the injection of some form of guidance signal:  This can be interrupted CW illumination (CWI), coded signal for good old STT or missile datalink.  Non-guiding track won't have that embedded as it isn't necessary.

Traditionally, yes. However, TVM implies good enough search radar returns or pulsed tracks to support missile guidance before switching to CWI depending on the missile tech.

 

Quote

Which capabilities for which SAM?  Do you know how those are implemented in the weapon system?

No, I don't know how, nor claimed to know, exactly how the capabilities are implemented for each weapon system and likely never will. Like I said before, all we need are approximations if certain SAM systems are confirmed to be capable of TVM. That's all we need to know. Anything more would be overmodeling and would probably step over a lot of boundries. A lot of guesswork is needed, and it's ok if there are inaccuracies, as long as it stays somewhat realistic even if some aspects are "gamified".

 

Quote

Yes, but knowing this lets you put your modeled transmission in the proper class.   Then you get into other interesting discussions like, can this RWR cover that frequency range which leads to figuring out which historical equipment do you really have on both ends.

Somebody from my squadron who used to work on Sea Sparrow and carried out trials against Prowlers stated that certain frequency ranges would just be defined as "battle frequencies", and did not change the core behaviours of the RWRs. For DCS purposes, we don't need to know hard numbers.

 

Quote

 

Then I would suggest that there are much, much more interesting things improve would have a much larger effect than trying to figure out which tiny number of SAMs beyond AEGIS and NASAMs have anything like a 'silent launch and guide' capability. 

• Constant target re-prioritization
• Track memory and engagement logic based on this memeory (ie. is this guy just flying circles to run you out of missiles?  quit shooting or shorten engagement range in that sector)
• Have at least a manually settable AOR for the SAM (And other entities) beyond which targets are deprioritized
• Allow SAMs to flash their search radars, don't be 'always on'
• Shoot and scoot tactics
• Decoys
• ECM countermeasures including use of EO to guide

 

The tiny number of SAMs that we do have in DCS make up the vast majority of REDFOR LRAD. These behaviours you listed should also, DEFINITELY, be included. I won't argue against that. This all falls under the umbrella of an improved AI and a decent IADS system.

Edited March 15, 2023 by July

[Honey]

Russian SAMs IRL do launch in mode similar to TWS. And, if it was indeed implemented in game, even the magic RWR we have in DCS wouldn't notify of a threat until it's too late. Maybe, the bug fixing process with RWR has dragged for so long because they're reworking SAMs to implement them more realistically, who knows.

[Pavlin_33]

30 minutes ago, Honey said:

Russian SAMs IRL do launch in mode similar to TWS. And, if it was indeed implemented in game, even the magic RWR we have in DCS wouldn't notify of a threat until it's too late. Maybe, the bug fixing process with RWR has dragged for so long because they're reworking SAMs to implement them more realistically, who knows.

Sometimes they launch without guidance initially

[GGTharos]

This is why the missile to hit ratio for SAMs is abysmal.

[Pavlin_33]

18 hours ago, GGTharos said:

This is why the missile to hit ratio for SAMs is abysmal.

Depends who, how and where is firing.

In '99 F-117A was downed by firing two missiles, and an F-16 was shot down by firing only one. In '95 another Falcon was shot down over Bosnia using 2 missiles.

[Honey]

1 час назад, Pavlin_33 сказал:

Depends who, how and where is firing.

In '99 F-117A was downed by firing two missiles, and an F-16 was shot down by firing only one. In '95 another Falcon was shot down over Bosnia using 2 missiles.

 

I believe he spoke about SAM's hit rate in the game, not IRL.

[Pavlin_33]

2 minutes ago, Honey said:

 

I believe he spoke about SAM's hit rate in the game, not IRL.

I see, well looks like I jumped the gun

[GGTharos]

You didn't jump the gun.   The number of missiles launched generally resulted in very few kills.  So what if engagement x used only two missiles, when your 2-3 aircraft shoot-down has required an overall expenditure of a thousand missiles?  That's the point - they got lucky.

In game the SAM hit rate is abysmal because the SAM logic (for when to shoot at, what to shoot at, etc)  could be better - it could use a major dose of 'acquiring track memory' to make its decisions, but even without that there are some interesting changes that could be made IMHO.

Edited April 17, 2023 by GGTharos

[okopanja]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:50 PM, Pavlin_33 said:

Depends who, how and where is firing.

In '99 F-117A was downed by firing two missiles, and an F-16 was shot down by firing only one. In '95 another Falcon was shot down over Bosnia using 2 missiles.

 

5 hours ago, GGTharos said:

You didn't jump the gun.   The number of missiles launched generally resulted in very few kills.  So what if engagement x used only two missiles, when your 2-3 aircraft shoot-down has required an overall expenditure of a thousand missiles?  That's the point - they got lucky.

Sorry for further digressing, but I came into possession of a book written by the ex-crew member of the 3rd r.d. 250th r.br. ("Pad noćnog sokola" - author Slaviša Golubović), but I really have to provide small update on this:

In both cases as well as in majority of launches, two missiles were fired. As you may know the SNR-125 has 2 guidance channels, enabling 2 missiles to be launched and guided. The second channel on SNR-125 did have hardware malfunction that was very subtle, and could not be discovered in field conditions, but which did lead to 2nd missile failing to acquire the target on each launch until they replaced whole block.

They fired on both F-117A and F-16CG with 2 missiles each, with second missile going ballistic from very start. The book actually provides unprecedented level of details, so each action is covered with signed testimonies of crew members at different stations, including those that were off duty observing the launches. E.g. F-117A climbed and flared, which indicates the pilot thought he was targeted by short range IR system. This gap in SA also indicates that certain devices that typically increase RCS were not present.

They made at least 2 more launches with same problem, so their score could have been even better, since with 2x0.7 they may have been even luckier. In fact the final score of this unit might take several decades to confirm, since nobody will publish the hits they could hide from public (plenty of lighting strikes that year, taking off tails ).

As for SA-6 (covered in another book "Three fingers of death", by group of authors all again real SA-6 operators), they were more hampered by low radar coverage ceiling, which meant that SEAD/DEAD teams had the liberty of behaving much more aggressively than with SA-3. This forced majority of SA-6 launches to be TV guided, which reduced probability of kill against aircrafts with high angular velocity.

In addition to number of missiles fired, one has to note that both sides fired hundred of missiles with no tangible results (e.g. SA-3, SA-6 but also HARMS). While vast majority did not cause direct kills, they managed very much to limit the amount of damage on the ground (forcing enemy aviation to keep flying high), which means that in a way they largely achieved their mission.

In short: ED SAMs, being of Soviet or Western origin are insanely simplified and do not allow to model the encounters that happened IRL.

Edited April 17, 2023 by okopanja