reported internally R-3R is not giving launch warnings to its target

[Pavlin_33]

As @Northstar98 mentioned, and I tried to explain in a very poor manner, if the 21's radar does not change any mode when firing a SARH, there's no way for an RWR to figure out when the missile launch occurred. This should be true for any radar, not just MiG-21's.
We're kind of spoiled a bit in DCS, 'cause we are used to getting launch-warnings consistently and reliably, no matter the system that is firing at us.
I think (not 100% sure) that in real life, pilots consider a lock tone as a missile already fired or at least about to be fired, but for us in DCS it's just reminder that someone is perhaps about to shoot.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Pavlin_33

[dumbaos]

Of course, lock indication=assume missile fired, but I have gotten the impression (perhaps wrongly ) that the OP gets no lock indication at all, hence the issue.

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

As @Northstar98 mentioned, and I tried to explain in a very poor manner, if the 21's radar does not change any mode when firing a SARH, there's no way for an RWR to figure out when the missile launch occurred. This should be true for any radar, not just MiG-21's.

That is just plain wrong, with a side of wrong and wrong on top.  But you did say 'If'.   However you want to frame it, guidance tends to inject a signal into whatever existing waveform, and if not, then you likely have an older system that can be easily decoyed.

Edited December 7, 2023 by GGTharos

[Pavlin_33]

25 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

That is just plain wrong, with a side of wrong and wrong on top.  But you did say 'If'.   However you want to frame it, guidance tends to inject a signal into whatever existing waveform, and if not, then you likely have an older system that can 

If there is radio guidance, yes it can be detected, sure. If there is not, it can't be detected, 'cause there's nothing to detect.

Not sure what you consider wrong with that.

Does a SARH without guidance exist? No idea, but if it does there's no way you can pick up a launch with an RWR. 

[GGTharos]

No, you don't need 'radio guidance' aka a missile datalink here.   The specific signal the missile is tuned to detect with its seeker is injected into whatever the radar's doing - for simplicity we'll say it is in STT.  There are may reasons for this system to exist, not the least of which is deconfliction with other aircraft guiding their own missiles, or the same aircraft guiding multiple SARH missiles to the same target.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

That is just plain wrong, with a side of wrong and wrong on top.  But you did say 'If'.   However you want to frame it, guidance tends to inject a signal into whatever existing waveform, and if not, then you likely have an older system that can be easily decoyed.

Which is exactly the point of contention, so hardly "plain wrong, side of wrong and wrong on top" - it depends...

Yes, we all know that typically (which last I checked, was not synonymous with "in every single case") something is injected into whatever signal the radar was transmitting in its track mode, or some other aspect about the signal changes when supporting a SARH missile (such as a CW illumination signal, frequency, whatever). But the question is does the RP-22's radar do this?

If it does, then fine, the lack of a launch warning is almost certainly inaccurate. But what if it doesn't?

That question is yet to be answered and without a definitive answer, all we can do is speculate until the cows come home about what the RP-22 does differently when supporting the R-3R, if it does something different at all.

[okopanja]

10 hours ago, GGTharos said:

No, you don't need 'radio guidance' aka a missile datalink here.   The specific signal the missile is tuned to detect with its seeker is injected into whatever the radar's doing - for simplicity we'll say it is in STT.  There are may reasons for this system to exist, not the least of which is deconfliction with other aircraft guiding their own missiles, or the same aircraft guiding multiple SARH missiles to the same target.

I would like to point out that we are talking about the missile that was developed from short range heat seeker, by replacing guidance with SARH, thus giving it all aspect capability.

At such range and weapon weight having the additional signal would kind of pointless and wastful. This is not a soviet AIM-7.

The RWR could therefore not distinguish STT from launch.

It should be noted that radar lock and launch authorization occur at different ranges. This is due to 2 reasons: kinetic and ability of seeker to receive the signal pass s/n threshold(missile antenna is tiny compared to rp2322). The only possible method to signal the launch with RWR is to pass certain signal threshold, and even then aspect would complicate the things.

Realistically speaking the pilot would launch in PPS with r-3r, since in ZPS he would likely use a heat seeker. Therefore for this era the most reliable "RWR" are pilot's eyes trained to spot the smoke.

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by okopanja

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

I would like to point out that we are talking about the missile that was developed from short range heat seeker, by replacing guidance with SARH, thus giving it all aspect capability.

At such range and weapon weight having the additional signal would kind of pointless and wastful. This is not a soviet AIM-7.

The RWR could therefore not distinguish STT from launch.

This is a non-sequitur.   Injecting a guidance signal has nothing to do with the missile's range, the AIM-7 can easily be used within sidewinder parameters and in some cases was the weapon of choice in those parameters - it still had to be tuned to its guidance channel like every SARH seeker out there.   If you're aware of an exception, I'd like to know about it.  I'm not sure why you believe you can determine that the additional signal would be wasteful, since you don't know why it's there.   I don't really know either - I know some reasons but not everything - just that it's very typical for that to be there.

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

It should be noted that radar lock and launch authorization occur at different ranges. This is due to 2 reasons: kinetic and ability of seeker to receive the signal pass s/n threshold(missile antenna is tiny compared to rp23). The only possible method to signal the launch with RWR is to pass certain signal threshold, and even then aspect would complicate the things.

The only possible method, huh?    You and a few others are really happy to grasp at straws here.  The technical evidence is that a signal is injected, or we switch to CW or whatever.   While this particular weapon system could be an exception, you'd have to find something to show that this is the case and so far you haven't.

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

Realistically speaking the pilot would launch in PPS with r-3r, since in ZPS he would likely use a heat seeker. Therefore for this era the most reliable "RWR" are pilot's eyes trained to spot the smoke.

Realistically speaking this has nothing to do with the discussion, since we're not discussing 'the best way' to detect an R-3R launch.

[okopanja]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

The only possible method, huh?    You and a few others are really happy to grasp at straws here.  The technical evidence is that a signal is injected, or we switch to CW or whatever.   While this particular weapon system could be an exception, you'd have to find something to show that this is the case and so far you haven't.

I am not the one grasping here at straws, but rather you trying to hint that there is a "signal" for the radar/missile in order to accommodate the assumption that RWR is able to detect something.

This is an early SARH, fired from limited platform and expectations of fancy features are probably not based on reality.

Again this missile is fired within visual range, if you have a documentation for radar/missile and the corresponding RWR, then it would have made sense to argue about giving RWR warning.

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Realistically speaking this has nothing to do with the discussion, since we're not discussing 'the best way' to detect an R-3R launch.

On the contrary, the initial claim of this topic is that RWR should give launch warning, so understanding what is detectable if at all is rather important. I would agree with @Pavlin_33that most likely the pilot would assume the missile was fired if they were in STT and certain maximal range from the target, or based on the signal level.

[Noctrach]

Just for sake of the fact that this is a game: Doesn't it make a lot more sense, in the absence of other evidence, that the R-3R isn't the one singular exception to the rule?

That way we wouldn't have to go in all the headache-inducing thoughts that the other assumption implies, like what would happen if two fishbeds both fire R-3Rs at different targets, or what happens if there's other radar activity in the same wavelength band, etc.

Just seems to make more sense to me that you'd hazard on the side of consistency? Especially if, y'know, the module developer has acknowledged it as a bug?

Then at least everything works according to the same set of principles. See also: literally any other EW debate wrt sim environments.

[Smyth]

12 hours ago, GGTharos said:

No, you don't need 'radio guidance' aka a missile datalink here.   The specific signal the missile is tuned to detect with its seeker is injected into whatever the radar's doing - for simplicity we'll say it is in STT.  There are may reasons for this system to exist, not the least of which is deconfliction with other aircraft guiding their own missiles, or the same aircraft guiding multiple SARH missiles to the same target.

Yes, the RP-22 needs to add some kind of coding frequency to its STT for the R3R. The point is that these missiles (and Aim-9C, and R530) are locked on the rail. Whatever coding frequency it might use, it must be injected already when the seeker is locked before launch.

Otherwise it would fail to prevent the missile from accidentally locking a target illuminated by a different MiG-21 (or F-8, or Mirage III). The tiny con-scan antennas on these missiles have an inherently wide beam pattern and need information from their launching radar to discern the correct target. If they tuned to a modulation applied through the launcher and not added to the radar emissions before launch, it would accomplish nothing because the seeker could be locking the incorrect target already on the rail.

It's unlikely this is even specific to STT for the R3R. We know an Aim-9C will happily lock on emissions from the APQ-124 even in search mode. F-8 manuals warn that the SARH Sidewinder can get stuck locking the Crusader's own nose after the radar switches back to search mode, and the pilot needs to cycle the weapon selector to break that lock. That implies any coding frequency for an Aim-9C is transmitted constantly by the radar even when it is not tracking a target.

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

If you're aware of an exception, I'd like to know about it.

Well, British documentation for the Skyflash states clearly that it uses a CW signal without any kind of modulation, so there is that.

Also its worth remembering that the Sparrow platform(s) before the F-14/15 did not switch to CW at launch. They transmit CW any time a missile is tuned, even with the radar in standby mode for that matter.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Smyth
typo

[Smyth]

1 hour ago, Noctrach said:

Just for sake of the fact that this is a game: Doesn't it make a lot more sense, in the absence of other evidence, that the R-3R isn't the one singular exception to the rule?

It should not be the exception. It should be the rule, for 60s systems anyway. The R530 from Mirage F1 is another pulse-seeking LOBL system so it should not, and the Aim-7E fired from an F-4 likely will not based on available documentation as its CW does not turn on at launch.

Players will have to get used to the way 1960s radar missiles and RWR work.

The elephant in the room for gameplay is the existing bug where the RP-22 does not give lock warnings. Launch warnings were masking the lack of lock warning, but if the (probably unrealistic) launch warning does not work reliably, it becomes somewhat game breaking. It's possible that launch warnings should stay for the RP-22 if the lock warnings will not be fixed quickly. How the game should work now to make it playable, may be different from the correct behavior long term.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Smyth
added comment on gameplay

[Pavlin_33]

34 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

Just for sake of the fact that this is a game: Doesn't it make a lot more sense, in the absence of other evidence, that the R-3R isn't the one singular exception to the rule?

You have a good point, but this is also a great opportunity to discuss this issue. If it turns out that other missiles/radars should behave the same then they should also not give a warning for sake of logic, instead of just "fixing" this and forgetting about it.

Bottom line is that RWR needs to detect something different between lock and launch, what ever that something might be. Otherwise it has no way of telling when the missile has been launched.

If it turns that 21 does not emmit anything different after launch, then it's not a bug and other platforms with the same behaviour should be revised. Otherwise this is a valid bug report.

[GGTharos]

5 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

You have a good point, but this is also a great opportunity to discuss this issue. If it turns out that other missiles/radars should behave the same then they should also not give a warning for sake of logic, instead of just "fixing" this and forgetting about it.

Bottom line is that RWR needs to detect something different between lock and launch, what ever that something might be. Otherwise it has no way of telling when the missile has been launched.

If it turns that 21 does not emmit anything different after launch, then it's not a bug and other platforms with the same behaviour should be revised. Otherwise this is a valid bug report.

Sure, as long they're made to fail often in look-down and eat chaff like no one's business, because that's the only way you get realism since that is what we're seeking.  Shouldn't really stand a chance against modern ECM either, but then again the state of ECM is what it is.

@Smyth good info - while not 100% conclusive, I'd say 99.99%.

Edited December 8, 2023 by GGTharos

[Pavlin_33]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

Sure, as long they're made to fail often in look-down and eat chaff like no one's business, because that's the only way you get realism since that is what we're seeking.  Shouldn't really stand a chance against modern ECM either, but then again the state of ECM is what it is.

What does this have to do with the original issue we are discussing here?

BTW, I agree with what you wrote above, but that's besides the point.

[GGTharos]

49 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

What does this have to do with the original issue we are discussing here?

BTW, I agree with what you wrote above, but that's besides the point.

Yes, it isn't quite on topic but it is relevant - it has to do with implementing half of the realism of a thing, which then leads to predictably eyerolling results, typically much better performance in gameplay than what should be possible.

Edited December 8, 2023 by GGTharos

[okopanja]

22 hours ago, Noctrach said:

Just for sake of the fact that this is a game: Doesn't it make a lot more sense, in the absence of other evidence, that the R-3R isn't the one singular exception to the rule?

We have similar exception in form of AIM-120 for which there is no indication of the launch, although it is well know that the signal is there. R-77 also has the signal, but that one gets detected . In both cases until certain point signal is a secret until the other side figures it out. ED is assuming that this signal is known (they may be even right, since the soviet radar program was compromised in 80s).

However with pitiful R-3R, there is no evidence that the main radar carrier changes to CW (except for sending pulses) or that it encodes the hidden signal. Simply put for 8km distance you do not need to bother with this. It's actually within visual range and you will simply see the smoke.

In theory as @GGTharoshas suggested we can talk about pulse vs CW, in which case CW would offer somewhat better flare chaff resistance and better clutter resistance. This could be even supported by the fact that first soviet SARH on KUB in later variant did support CW to deal with clutter, but this does not appear to be modeled in DCS.  RP-22 radar itself is not meant for work in radar clutter, in fact it's directed upwards in order to avoid this. Hence, I do not see the reason why would missile need CW. CW could offer somewhat better flare chaff resistance if the target is notching, but in this case time for reaction is rather limited. It's more likely that e.g. F-5 pilot would maneuver before it enters into firing zone of the mig-21 head on.

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by okopanja

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, okopanja said:

We have similar exception in form of AIM-120 for which there is no indication of the launch, although it is well know that the signal is there. R-77 also has the signal, but that one gets detected . In both cases until certain point signal is a secret until the other side figures it out. ED is assuming that this signal is known (they may be even right, since the soviet radar program was compromised in 80s).

However with pitiful R-3R, there is no evidence that the main radar carrier changes to CW (except for sending pulses) or that it encodes the hidden signal. Simply put for 8km distance you do not need to bother with this. It's actually within visual range and you will simply see the smoke.

In theory as @GGTharoshas suggested we can talk about pulse vs CW, in which case CW would offer somewhat better flare resistance and better clutter resistance. This could be even supported by the fact that first soviet SARH on KUB in later variant did support CW to deal with clutter, but this does not appear to be modeled in DCS.  RP-22 radar itself is not meant for work in radar clutter, in fact it's directed upwards in order to avoid this. Hence, I do not see the reason why would missile need CW. CW could offer somewhat better flare resistance if the target is notching, but in this case time for reaction is rather limited. It's more likely that e.g. F-5 pilot would maneuver before it enters into firing zone of the mig-21 head on.

 

You saying in MiG-29S in TWS2 it gives missile launch warning when firing R-77 before missile is pitbull? In J-11 it treats it as R-27, so same missile guidance injection signal. AIM-54/Mica R work same as AMRAAM and don’t give indication until pitbull, and I don’t believe R-77 acts any different when launched in TWS2 by MiG-29S. 
 

Also not sure what flares have to do with it but unless someone has a technical document for RP-22 that explains the specifics I don’t know what can be gained from arguing what we don’t know and trying to prove or disprove that it acts differently then any other SARH in DCS. 

[GGTharos]

I think @Smyth point was quite clear - the missile seeker must lock on while on the wing for certain missiles, which means the signal, if there, must already be injected.  So in some cases you would expect it to be always present, in others you could expect it to be injected when you pull the trigger.

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

Also not sure what flares have to do with it but unless someone has a technical document for RP-22 that explains the specifics I don’t know what can be gained from arguing what we don’t know and trying to prove or disprove that it acts differently then any other SARH in DCS. 

Which signal? Again talking based on assumptions. This is not AIM-7 and later company.

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

You saying in MiG-29S in TWS2 it gives missile launch warning when firing R-77 before missile is pitbull? In J-11 it treats it as R-27, so same missile guidance injection signal. AIM-54/Mica R work same as AMRAAM and don’t give indication until pitbull, and I don’t believe R-77 acts any different when launched in TWS2 by MiG-29S. 

Last time I checked the warning was going off once TWS2 was replaced with mode guiding 2 missiles on launch (I do not thing they were pitbul). I did not test this recently.

8 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

Also not sure what flares have to do with it but unless someone has a technical document for RP-22 that explains the specifics I don’t know what can be gained from arguing what we don’t know and trying to prove or disprove that it acts differently then any other SARH in DCS. 

lapsus linguae. I corrected it, but kept also original.

Regarding the general topic of RWR warnings: in DCS many of these things were implemented on assumptions and initial balancing and subsequent nerf wars had a lot to do with it.  In this case I am pointing out this is very likely pulse guided missile (while others believe theory of additional signals or switching to CW), which means there is no difference between STT and after when the missile goes out. Again I will remember that range of both the radar and missile are within visual range. Not really the need to go after fancy stuff.

To give launch warning you need some change in the operation of radar: e.g. sudden intensity burst or other detectable change. Bottom line: the RWR should give launch warning only if this is detectable. In DCS this is simply if then line, but in reality you might not be able to detect this.

[Flappie]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

To give launch warning you need some change in the operation of radar: e.g. sudden intensity burst or other detectable change. Bottom line: the RWR should give launch warning only if this is detectable.

I think we can all agree on that.

Now, don't we know how the MiG-21 radar operates when guiding he R-3R? I mean, that's a very old airframe and it is present in every corner of the Earth. Don't we have some public, Rule 1.16 compatible document explaining what happens with the radar when guiding a R-3R?

[Flappie]

I think we can safely say this radar manual from 1972 uploaded to the Internet Archive in 2020 is Rule 1.16-compatible: https://archive.org/details/RP-21_Sapfir_radar_technical_manual/RP-21M -MA technical description/

The problem is I can't read Polish.

[okopanja]

27 minutes ago, Flappie said:

I think we can all agree on that.

Now, don't we know how the MiG-21 radar operates when guiding he R-3R? I mean, that's a very old airframe and it is present in every corner of the Earth. Don't we have some public, Rule 1.16 compatible document explaining what happens with the radar when guiding a R-3R?

I would say we stop arguing and ask ED and Magnitude 3 to clarify at least in this particular case what is the correct behavior. They both have access to documentation and Magnitude 3 had team member who was actually Mig-21bis pilot.

[Flappie]

21 minutes ago, okopanja said:

I would say we stop arguing and ask ED and Magnitude 3 to clarify at least in this particular case what is the correct behavior. They both have access to documentation and Magnitude 3 had team member who was actually Mig-21bis pilot.

The internal report basically says the RWR R-3R launch warning cannot be heard in a congested radar environement. And Magnitude has already acknowledged the internal report. I guess that means they believe a RWR should be able to detect a R-3R missile being guided towards it.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Flappie