Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
That is precisely the point. IIUC what you say, attacking SAM site with MK-82/rocket/cannon inside the lethal range will be possible without any problem as long as we keep our radar off. … see what I mean?
No this is not good. Remember that SAM AI remains robots. We won’t tell him : if A/C radar OFF => Switch SAM radar ON ; else ; ACTITE SAM radar.
We can’t use such a logic … and what happens for a/c without radar (A-4) … they will remain undetected forever? …And before considering SAM AI tactics, we have to build the IADS network and create the connectivity with ground and airborne EWR station. We also have to make the SAM less predicable in their engagement envelope (not firing always at the same distance/time) depending on skill, moral, target attitude … etc … Those are IMO a higher priority before trying to implement any “smart” tactics. And once we will start to think about “radar blink tactics”, we will have to fine a way to not make AI SAM unable to guide any more missile until their end.
The point of snoozing is to make it harder for him to find you - yes, it should have an effect (if you rage in with your radar on you should have a higher probability of getting hit), it seems to be that way in FAF and it should be similar in BMS.
Building IADS into the sim is another effort entirely - for now, I’d just settle for better RW-like behavior from individual sites (like “hide” vs “blink”, maybe)…and as you pointed out - better modelling of the individual site radars. I should think that a great deal of air bogey AI could be adapted to surface threats as far as my thinking goes…that would at least be a step forward.
-
I think what we all are talking about is BMS being able to utilize GCI (ground controlled intercept) capabilities. That would depend on the systems involved to link and provide information to all of the SAM units in the area. If jammers are on station, SAM intercepts would be held in check. At least to a degree. BMS would have to be able to share data from a main ST radar with other units. But the specific SAM radar would have to lock on before the launch. Also, there is a limitation to time on track for any SAM radar. TOT’s for SAM’s in classified but again approximation could be employed. I have seen in BMS where a SA-2 lights up and launched in a few seconds. That is not realistic IMO. But if it received rad range from another radar (GCI) system, then it could launch quickly enough (say 10 to 20 seconds) after lighting up the target with it’s own guidance radar system.
That would be the ultimate goal, but for now I’d settle for individual SAM sites just acting in better defense of themselves - like becoming un-targetable if they “feel threatened”.
-
I think what we all are talking about is BMS being able to utilize GCI (ground controlled intercept) capabilities. That would depend on the systems involved to link and provide information to all of the SAM units in the area. If jammers are on station, SAM intercepts would be held in check. At least to a degree. BMS would have to be able to share data from a main ST radar with other units. But the specific SAM radar would have to lock on before the launch. Also, there is a limitation to time on track for any SAM radar. TOT’s for SAM’s in classified but again approximation could be employed. I have seen in BMS where a SA-2 lights up and launched in a few seconds. That is not realistic IMO. But if it received rad range from another radar (GCI) system, then it could launch quickly enough (say 10 to 20 seconds) after lighting up the target with it’s own guidance radar system.
SAM sites do not need GCI radars. They usually has their own EW radars for target acquisition they use all the time as they are metric wavelength so they are not HARM targetable.
They can prepare everything and then when they are ready they just locks you on and fire in less than 10s.
In SAM SIM (it simulates SA-2 with great realism) i am able to lock on target and then fire in less than 10s. OFC i have to prepare missiles (spin up gyros) and aim launchers at the target, but i don’t need FCR to be tracking target when i am doing it. It is possible to do with FCR not transmitting.EW radars have ranges higher than 150 clicks against typical fighter RCS target. Some may have well over 300 clicks like the one for SA-5. The way to defeat them is to use offensive jammers which denies ranging (defensive ones can’t usually jam this wavelength) or to use terrain masking (you are risking being nailed by AAA and SHORAD and you may need external fuel tanks).
Real SAMs generally have no RWR, at least “classic” soviet ones. So if SA-2 is able to detect your radar in BMS thats a bug.
-
mp fixeddddddddddddddddddddddd lol thats all we askkkkk its alll that really matters atleast 20 vs 20 no problemosss atleast
-
SAM sites do not need GCI radars. They usually has their own EW radars for target acquisition they use all the time as they are metric wavelength so they are not HARM targetable.
They can prepare everything and then when they are ready they just locks you on and fire in less than 10s.
In SAM SIM (it simulates SA-2 with great realism) i am able to lock on target and then fire in less than 10s. OFC i have to prepare missiles (spin up gyros) and aim launchers at the target, but i don’t need FCR to be tracking target when i am doing it. It is possible to do with FCR not transmitting.Real SAMs generally have no RWR, at least “classic” soviet ones. So if SA-2 is able to detect your radar in BMS thats a bug.
All true - but most radars can track the energy from another radar if it shines in their direction (generally to get angles only), similar to tracking a jam strobe…but if they do get a whiff of your own ship radar they can own you…that decreases if you use a jammer and keep your nose off them. So I don’t consider tracking the aircraft FCR to be a “bug”.
-
From what i recall SAM FCRs usually have different frequencies than APG68.
Frequencies of SAM radars varies a lot depending on SAM type.This is why it is possible to classify them using RWR. If they had same frequencies and emmision type RWR would not be able to tell if its SA-2 or F-16.
RWR is optimized for wide frequency range, SAM radars are not.
-
That’s not even close to what I’m getting at - you don’t need to classify the radar to track it…just see the energy. Which doesn’t even have to be on your radiating freq…but you do have to sniff, and AFAIK a lot of (if not most) systems do that.
-
This post is deleted! -
That’s not even close to what I’m getting at - you don’t need to classify the radar to track it…just see the energy. Which doesn’t even have to be on your radiating freq…but you do have to sniff, and AFAIK a lot of (if not most) systems do that.
From what i recall SA-2 is able to “sniff”. It is a passive mode with FCR transmitter not radiating but receiver actually picking up signal. It gonna pick up jammers this way, but only if they are constantely on. From what i recall it won’t pick up signals from outside of the frequency range. Radars (i mean non F.A.R. ones) works in narrow spectrum. AFAIK there is signal processing that filters out all other frequencies to don’t have unnecessery clutter and to make them harder to jam. Also antennas are designed for specific wavelength, not like RWR which is optimized to have wideband receiver.
So you rather don’t gonna see everything that is radiating on radar screen. Radars are not RWRs. They aren’t able to sniff on wideband so they should not be able to detect your APG-68.
just see the energy
How? When antennas are optimized for specific frequency and same with signal processing. Radars are not showing all the RF energy that is in air, otherwise you would get mobile phones, satellite downlinks and other junk populating your radar screen
Another example: Do you see infrared with your eyes? No. This is because eyes are not able to receive this wavelenth so you have no chances to see anything that is outside of visible light frequency range
-
You’re still not getting the point. All you need is a freq analyzer and some knowledge of what you are looking for/at - that unit is going to see radar energy any time another operating radar is pointed at it, or in it’s general direction. It’s just a passive radio direction finder…but that’s enough. A radar (any radar) is like a flashlight in a dark room - you can see what the beam is shining on, but what it’s shining on can also see the beam and where it’s coming from. Simple physics - your radar is an airborne beacon.
An “RWR” on the ground has nothing to do with this discussion…and the fact that an airborne radar operates in a “narrow band” only makes it that much more visible to a freq-an. That information alone is enough to get angles on the target.
-
All true - but most radars can track the energy from another radar if it shines in their direction (generally to get angles only).
? … Do you have any documentation or articles about it?
To my knowledge, only passive detectors are able to detect radar energy. Not a radar itself (?) … And I do not talk about IFF of secondary radar. I talk about primary radar.
Will have to dig that. … If it is confirmed, then … maybe … if we have coders in a good mood … but this will be AFTER the other prio which I was talking about in previous posts.
-
Bingo. But that doesn’t preclude a radar having a secondary detector either built into it, or co-located with it.
…if you can afford, consult Jane’s Defence publications. The ones you have to purchase -
https://www.ihs.com/products/janes-artillery-air-defence.html
That’s a start for information on whole systems.
But I also found this site, which has some very good information on surface radars in general…could take you year(s) to digest, though -
http://www.radartutorial.eu/index.en.html
http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/13.labs/karte001.en.html
…but it’s very interesting. Not systems, but individual radars - parts of the puzzle. You can look up about any radar you like from the drops in the second link.
OTOH, I may not even need no steenking FCR at all to launch at you…
-
dee jay i got a minor bug… if the ENG CONDITION is accidentaly swiched to SEC with engine off (ie during Ramp Start) it can’t be set to PRImary UNLESS the JFS has Spooled the engine to 20%(the point you press idle detent)
-
dee jay i got a minor bug… if the ENG CONDITION is accidentaly swiched to SEC with engine off (ie during Ramp Start) it can’t be set to PRImary UNLESS the JFS has Spooled the engine to 20%(the point you press idle detent)
Known.
-
OTOH, I may not even need no steenking FCR at all to launch at you…
You still need FCR for optical launches.
Electro optical systems may track targets (Tunguska, SA-2,3,4,8 ), sometimes they may even track missile too (Tunguska) but you still need RPK (the missile command transmitter) to transmit guidance commands to the missile, even whhen using optical tracking. RPK is a part of FCR. HARM can home on RPK too, so it can nail those systems even when they use optical tracking. RWR can also detect optical launches, because it can detect RPK signals being sent. Soviets were aware of this and they have added a switch to make RPK transmit without actual launch, this was to scare enemies and make their RWR scream ML.Second problem is detection range, it is lower for optical systems. This is the reason why long range systems like SA-5 had no optical channel.
-
…yeah…you need the command guidance for such a missile. No…you don’t need the FCR to track the target. “Degraded” shot (angles only, angle rate generated range), but still a shot.
-
Right.
Its similar to tracking jamming target where you have no range information, just angles.
In both cases (tracking jamming target with FCR and also when you track target optically) you guide missile in 3 points mode. When you got full information (FCR tracking in angles and range) you can use half lead mode which is more effective against targets with big angular velocities. -
You can generate range from angles only - the best example I can think of is the ARBS on the Harrier, which does so very nicely. It’s mostly a factor of the accuracy your gimbals/tracking mount, but you can generate very suitable range estimation from angles/rates alone. Here’s a half-decent treatise -
The site could also track manually and do the same…another degradation, but same principle(s).
-
All true - but most radars can track the energy from another radar if it shines in their direction (generally to get angles only), similar to tracking a jam strobe…but if they do get a whiff of your own ship radar they can own you…that decreases if you use a jammer and keep your nose off them. So I don’t consider tracking the aircraft FCR to be a “bug”.
I would be curious though to know that the simulator SAM programmer would have a subject about it.
Monlibalage may ask him. I think they know each other (?)
-
I would be curious though to know that the simulator SAM programmer would have a subject about it.
Monlibalage may ask him. I think they know each other (?)
Coolness. There should be some effect…I have no idea how you all code this stuff, but I tend to think in terms of probabilities and such tables; in this case the effect is on probability of detection.
BTW, in the subject of modeling an IADS…you might also want to point him at this thesis -
https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/26640
Again, stumbled on this looking for the definition of “LOBO” I saw on the radar site I referenced. This guy’s even coded his IADS model for ya. One step at a time…the info is out there if you look for it.