Radar-TWS

[Hog_driver]

2 minutes ago, Kaktus said:

Lots of resources are burned just to give a hypothetical protection …

I guess that's why somebody called a carrier "a self-licking ice cream cone"

Edited Tuesday at 12:57 PM by Hog_driver

[The_Doktor]

Of course it's a bug. But nobody wants to admit it. 
Everyone thinks a radar from the 60s shouldn't work. In RWS mode, the raw radar signals go through the same weapons control computer as in TWS. 
In RWS mode, you get your four targets displayed. The signal is there. The computer processes it and presents you with the result on the DDD. 
As soon as you switch to TWS, the same computer forgets everything it already knew. It should really just start by creating a track for each 
previously calculated target. But it forgets everything and no longer recognizes the raw signals. Instead, the computer creates a single track. 
Just like that. Bang. Gone. Useless. 

Everything the F-14 was supposed to be, it isn't in DCS. Its most praised feature, namely tracking and engaging up to six targets, isn't possible. 
Add to that the utopian flight path of the 54, and everyone comes up with the most amazing ideas about why it never really worked. It's simply an 
insult to all the people who worked on the weapon system.

 

[Dragon1-1]

19 minutes ago, The_Doktor said:

The computer processes it and presents you with the result on the DDD. 

That's where you're wrong. In RWS, the computer does minimal processing on the signal before sending it to the DDD. That you can see multiple hits doesn't mean that a 70s computer can. Basically, the computer needs some tolerance around a hit to make sure it jumping around due to radar's inaccuracy doesn't cause another track to be created. If multiple hits are within this "tolerance box", the computer will classify them as a single track.

Engaging up to six targets with Phoenixes is possible... just not when they're far away and in a tight formation. You seem to think a computer must be better at reading the radar picture than a human. This may be true today, but it definitely wasn't in the 70s. Even something that looks obvious to you may not be so to the computer. If that was not the case, there would be no reason to have RWS mode.

[draconus]

22 hours ago, Kaktus said:

So basically Russians could have easily overwhelmed the enemy cap by flying this formation as radar simply can’t pick up the planes flying behind and they were far from close formation meaning if they actually fly close formation you can’t pick them up?

It used to be one of the tactics either trail (to hide behind others in radar shadow) or close formation (to represent one target). For the first you can change aspect but they still can fly toward you and adjust formation but they can't hide if you have a wingman or datalink. For the second your radar will eventually separate the targets when close enough.

2 hours ago, Kaktus said:

as yes surprise attack does happen

The whole idae of mobile Carrier Battle Group is to make sure no surprises ever happen. That means constantly gathering info from intelligence, satellite data, long range radars, AWACS, having AEGIS and patrol flights especially when there's high chance of the attack and also far enough from the enemy territory.

Letting Bears as close as 50nm to the carrier is fiction. Having Tomcats as the only protection also is. Leaving carrier as a lone ship... yes, fiction too.

[Ivandrov]

2 hours ago, Kaktus said:

interesting points, but the offsetting does reduce phoenix range as instead of head on it’s not 30 degree offset or more even, in my game the bombers launch the missiles and they mostly hit … I put a single cv not a 20 ship DD cover screen as grim reapers do as yes surprise attack does happen and surprisingly those kh35 did their job good

 

back to radar and intercept angles, for successful intercept o see no other way but constant patrols of at least two tomcats with 4 phoenix each and lots of fuel, a tanker to give them more time on job so you can do 24/7 patrol and e2 hawkeye at 50 nm from cv so potentially you see bears at 300 nm from cv. …. Lots of resources are burned just to give a hypothetical protection … if they are tu22 which go supersonic and can fly hugging sea floor I guess it complicates situation even more so

I don't see how there would be a suprise attack scenario with just the Carrier by itself, as if it's by itself, it would not be ready for flight operations anyway. I've seen them load up the deck with cars for transport for instance when sailing the west coast going to drydock.

Other forces are willing to form a group with the Carrier as well like this combined U.S. Japanese group.

 

As far as aircraft deployment, that's pretty close to what they did. Patrols are never just single aircraft, at least 2 a flight. There would be at least one S3 in the air for tanking. The usual loadout was with 2 Phoenix's. The CAP distances could, according to a Tomcat pilot, extend out to over 1,000 miles from the Carrier.

Edited Tuesday at 03:47 PM by Ivandrov

[Ivandrov]

1 hour ago, The_Doktor said:

Of course it's a bug. But nobody wants to admit it. 
Everyone thinks a radar from the 60s shouldn't work. In RWS mode, the raw radar signals go through the same weapons control computer as in TWS. 
In RWS mode, you get your four targets displayed. The signal is there. The computer processes it and presents you with the result on the DDD. 
As soon as you switch to TWS, the same computer forgets everything it already knew. It should really just start by creating a track for each 
previously calculated target. But it forgets everything and no longer recognizes the raw signals. Instead, the computer creates a single track. 
Just like that. Bang. Gone. Useless. 

Everything the F-14 was supposed to be, it isn't in DCS. Its most praised feature, namely tracking and engaging up to six targets, isn't possible. 
Add to that the utopian flight path of the 54, and everyone comes up with the most amazing ideas about why it never really worked. It's simply an 
insult to all the people who worked on the weapon system.

 

It's entirely possible, I've done it multiple times in an actual game environment.

As already said, there's far more processing involved with TWS than RWS. You will notice that you can't hook an RWS contact on the TID for all the juicy information a TWS track provides.

Edited Tuesday at 04:10 PM by Ivandrov

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

It used to be one of the tactics either trail (to hide behind others in radar shadow) or close formation (to represent one target).

You know, where was this one movie where they had F-5s do that a time or two...  

Yeah, real tactic, and it would confuse TWS. If AWACS or other assets could watch them take off and form up, it'd be less of a surprise, but it would have been an issue.

[Kaktus]

Ok did anyone watch my track how I get closer and closer and tws doesn’t differentiate those bombers, and their close formation is one bomber and then on his six is another bomber ONE MILE AWAY … this is their formation and it co fuses the tws at 16 miles… so only AT 12 MILES it picks them apart??

[Ivandrov]

46 minutes ago, Kaktus said:

Ok did anyone watch my track how I get closer and closer and tws doesn’t differentiate those bombers, and their close formation is one bomber and then on his six is another bomber ONE MILE AWAY … this is their formation and it co fuses the tws at 16 miles… so only AT 12 MILES it picks them apart??

Yeah, seems about right.

[RustBelt]

8 hours ago, Kaktus said:

Ok did anyone watch my track how I get closer and closer and tws doesn’t differentiate those bombers, and their close formation is one bomber and then on his six is another bomber ONE MILE AWAY … this is their formation and it co fuses the tws at 16 miles… so only AT 12 MILES it picks them apart??

Ok think like this. A radar is a flashlight with a tight beam. It swings around side to side at different elevations. Say you’re in a dark gymnasium with a very coherent beam flashlight so not a lot of light scatter, there’s two orange barrels out there somewhere in front of you. If the barrels are in a straight line, to you one behind the other, and you swing your light by and find the barrel, how many do you see? 

One. The other barrel is right behind it in its shadow. Now you may say “but I can see the edge of that other barrel.” And maybe it’s not perfectly behind. 
 

Now to replicate a millimeter wave “light beam” not a nanometer wave light beam, put on the oldest foggiest pair of safety glasses you can find. The ones that were under a pile of work jackets in the back of a truck for a month. With all the grease and oil smears on it. 
 

That’s how a radar sees. And It doesn’t have an aperture like your eye, it just has a reception plane. That’s the safety glasses. All you see in the dark is a bright orange blob roughly barrel shaped. That’s your radar picture.  

12 hours ago, Kaktus said:

interesting points, but the offsetting does reduce phoenix range as instead of head on it’s not 30 degree offset or more even, in my game the bombers launch the missiles and they mostly hit … I put a single cv not a 20 ship DD cover screen as grim reapers do as yes surprise attack does happen and surprisingly those kh35 did their job good

 

back to radar and intercept angles, for successful intercept o see no other way but constant patrols of at least two tomcats with 4 phoenix each and lots of fuel, a tanker to give them more time on job so you can do 24/7 patrol and e2 hawkeye at 50 nm from cv so potentially you see bears at 300 nm from cv. …. Lots of resources are burned just to give a hypothetical protection … if they are tu22 which go supersonic and can fly hugging sea floor I guess it complicates situation even more so

Also, a Carrier group burns over $6.5 MILLION dollars a DAY. 
 

A Day. They are VERY expensive.

Edited Wednesday at 01:41 AM by RustBelt

[Kaktus]

again IF you watch the track and see i am coming closer and CLOSER and i'm at 13 miles and only then the radar pickes up an offsetting bomber group that each is trailing up to a mile behind the other.. seriously? u defending this is realistic? 

 

i can see with my own eyes the bomber separation group and radar does not? i'm sorry but i call BS on this, maybe and probably radar is not that powerful as we the simmers would like but this is garbage

[draconus]

20 minutes ago, Kaktus said:

this is realistic? 

This is how radars work. As long as 2 target stay in 1 radar cell you get one target detected. Maybe RWS is bugged here.

[okopanja]

9 minutes ago, draconus said:

This is how radars work. As long as 2 target stay in 1 radar cell you get one target detected. Maybe RWS is bugged here.

That is kind of a simplistic view. You can get the idea if there are additional aircraft in group, or even at a bit different distances.

[Ivandrov]

1 hour ago, Kaktus said:

again IF you watch the track and see i am coming closer and CLOSER and i'm at 13 miles and only then the radar pickes up an offsetting bomber group that each is trailing up to a mile behind the other.. seriously? u defending this is realistic? 

 

i can see with my own eyes the bomber separation group and radar does not? i'm sorry but i call BS on this, maybe and probably radar is not that powerful as we the simmers would like but this is garbage

Again, you can believe what you want. Heatblur has documentation and SME feedback guiding how they tune the TWS performance and you do not, simple as that. I believe Heatblur unless you can prove otherwise.

[wwWolfcom]

My opinion about the situation...

radar could not see trail targets in such condition(Co altitude, Co azimuth, Co speed).

TWS is Pulse Doppler mode, based on Doppler effects.
Co-altitude, co-speed head on, trail formation targets could be separated if distance is larger than range resolution.

About your situation, formation is large enough to satisfy range resolution.

Then why?

1. Signal strength
Trail target have lower signal strength than lead one.
AGC/PARAMP could results trail target drop out, since SNR can be biased on lead target(Higher signal strength).

2. If trail target's return signal is filtered out, FM ranging is no more an option.

3.Trail targets return signal could be physically masked by lead target's one.
3-1. or radar signals could not reach to trail targets, masked by lead target.

5. various TWS exclusive filtering/thresholds.


Then why RWS detects but not TWS? Could be bug or simplified implementation.

From what i've heard, F-14 RWS was more prone to primitive mode. Only range rate and FM ranging, azimuth is available.
But TWS, much more computations, threshold were needed to built complete track file.
 

[Kaktus]

I agree to most, definitely something off, at least if tws correct than heatblur has to rectify rws to be crappy so as to fall on line with rest of the situation…. But I can not reconcile not seeing bombers when I’m offset to their heading by more than 30 degrees at 15 miles and their separation of one mile …

[Q3ark]

This issue was discussed at length a few years ago. TWS has resolution limits, which is why the other radar modes can break out a group of aircraft flying in close formation and TWS can't.

 

When you see a contact on the TID in TWS it's not a radar return, it's a TWS track file. That's the WCS computer looking at the raw radar returns and calculating not only where the contact is but also, based upon how it is maneuvering, where it will be in the future so it can guide an AIM-54 missile onto it (this is the part that RWS doesn't do, which is why it can't guide an AIM-54 and also why it doesn't have the same resolution constraints because it has much less processing to do). Due to the computational power of the AWG9/WCS there are limitations on what can be processed, which means aircraft flying close together get lumped into one track file. 

Here's a link to the original discussion, it's explained better in here than I can. it's only 2 pages and definitely worth a read.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Q3ark
spelling

[wwWolfcom]

8 hours ago, Kaktus said:

I agree to most, definitely something off, at least if tws correct than heatblur has to rectify rws to be crappy so as to fall on line with rest of the situation…. But I can not reconcile not seeing bombers when I’m offset to their heading by more than 30 degrees at 15 miles and their separation of one mile …

No, I don't have problem at such condition.

AWG-9's azimuth resolution at 15nm is about 0.6nm, circa 3600feet.