AIM 120
-
@Mav-jp except it is… the RDI radar with HPRF only and only two PRF’s for ranging has 1Nmi error or less. 6Nmi error is beyond absurd.
-
Guys, at what point did you not understand to resume this discussion for U1?
-
@MaxWaldorf said in AIM 120:
Guys, at what point did you not understand to resume this discussion for U1?
I dont recall anyone saying that was a requirement, just alot of people saying they were going to do that. Also the issue I am concerned with is apparently not considered a bug and Mav isnt even willing to discuss it, so I dont see how waiting for U1 will accomplishing anything if TWS being so inaccurate that it cant tell the difference between jets with 6nm of separating flying in a straight line as not being an error.
-
Actually the fix will not make into U1. U2 for sure.
Maybe for that reason?
-
@MaxWaldorf said in AIM 120:
Guys, at what point did you not understand to resume this discussion for U1?
I dont recall anyone saying that was a requirement, just alot of people saying they were going to do that. Also the issue I am concerned with is apparently not considered a bug and Mav isnt even willing to discuss it, so I dont see how waiting for U1 will accomplishing anything if TWS being so inaccurate that it cant tell the difference between jets with 6nm of separating flying in a straight line as not being an error.
-
Forget what you know about 4.35…
-
Unless you have tangible not classified data (not based on other sims) that can prove that TWS should be more precise, feel free to share.
-
U2 will fix an issue on 120C drag performance but that’s not linked to TWS…
I’m sorry our answer do not satisfy your needs but try to ask a RL F-16 pilot about TWS and see how reliable this mode is on fast moving target…
-
-
@MaxWaldorf This is basic radar theory here TWS uses the same waveform as RWS the only difference being that it builds track files. Getting range information in medium PRF relies on PRF switching.
-
@nighthawk2174 said in AIM 120:
@Mav-jp except it is… the RDI radar with HPRF only and only two PRF’s for ranging has 1Nmi error or less. 6Nmi error is beyond absurd.
For you information , the potential maximum error is not a range but an accumulation of different errors at different levels of the chain
You have only a narrow view of all the potential errors build in
It also factors in error on velocity of target
It also factors in error on velocity vector of target
It also factors in an error INS
It also factors in an error in DL messages
And this is not a bug of course since those maximum deviations are set up on purpose
The maximum error of all of this cumulated can be important , especially when target is flying high speed
We are of course talking about statistical data here , you can absolutely have a TWS shot with zero deviation since every deviation factor is probabilistic
This is why we are talking about Probability of Guidance (not even probability of kill which is something else ) two strictly identical shots will give potentially two different results
This setup will not change.
-
@nighthawk2174
It’s really time to stop buying Raython PRBS… AIM120 PG has never been 75%
For the first time a public simulator offer something else that marketing bullshit… -
It also factors in error on velocity of target
Velocity ambiguities can be solved to the same degree as range ambiguities so I fail to see how this would be an issue or any large source of error.
It also factors in an error INS
Things like laser ring gyros have a drift of .01deg/hr if not less. I fail to see how this would be any real contributor of error in the short 80-100sec flight. Less so considering that the seeker will take over guidance at some point before max flight time.
It also factors in an error in DL messages
I again fail to see what kind of error could be present and how it could cause any kind of large miss distances.
And this is not a bug of course since those maximum deviations are set up on purpose
Sure but they are heavily overdone, one of the features that the AIM-120 was marketed as having was the ability to deal with tightly grouped targets. It can’t do that right now.
This setup will not change.
Well it should as a 6Nmi error is completely unreasonable.
-
@MaxWaldorf said in AIM 120:
@MaxWaldorf said in AIM 120:
Guys, at what point did you not understand to resume this discussion for U1?
I dont recall anyone saying that was a requirement, just alot of people saying they were going to do that. Also the issue I am concerned with is apparently not considered a bug and Mav isnt even willing to discuss it, so I dont see how waiting for U1 will accomplishing anything if TWS being so inaccurate that it cant tell the difference between jets with 6nm of separating flying in a straight line as not being an error.
- Unless you have tangible not classified data (not based on other sims) that can prove that TWS should be more precise, feel free to share.
How about the entire concept of how TWS works? TWS is basically just a narrow volume search with a a set of track correlation algorithims. The individual radar hits are just as precise as they would be in search. Range doppler and angle can be resolved far better than the current BMS implementation suggests.
Where there would be errors is in the the statistical correlation of the targets, where tracks might be confused with other tracks or somehow meneavuer outside the correlation box such that on the next real radar hit the target is outside what the radar considers to be the max possible statistical distance for that track.
In the case of a high speed target, or several, the size of the max statistical distance in the coordinate system would increase in size, which would complicate the ability of the radar to correctly associate tracks. But unless the system is very very primitive, most of the time an error that swaps two tracks in the same correlation box will still result in both targets being tracked, but the missile that is going to them might be swapped.
In any case, this kind of thing is not what we have going on BMS. In BMS the system gets confused by targets flying a moderate speeds in a straight line. Furthrmore, for the system to become confused, it would need to by unable to associate the track in the entire coorinate system, not just one discriminate. For example several targets with similar predicting forward speed and therefore similar predicted position on the next update will generally have different positions in the track coordinate system in azimuth and elevaton, doppler etc.
What I have seen in game, and from other users, is that the deviations are humongous and they do not seem to have much if any bearing on the actual geometry the radar is dealing with. I find it very unlikely that you have replaced the old system however simplistic, with a realistic model of the actual statistical models in a TWS system because doing that under the hood in addition to running the rest of the game (not to mention for every jet in the game) seems unlikely. More likely, there is some kind of RNG system that has been applied to the radar in TWS, and it does not seem to care at all about what the targets are actually doing and how that would actually probabalistically affect such as system.
-
I will not comment further as I consider myself as an outsider observer on the topic. I don’t have specific knowledge on the subject nor do I pretend to.
My personal opinion is that we will value profesionnal feedback over community “assumptions”.
-
@MaxWaldorf All of the knowledge I’ve provided has come from people like Skolnik who spent decades developing radars and the theory behind them for the USN. Basic radar theory is basic radar theory no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Plus SME’s can be outright wrong or just misremembering. I’ve seen it before on more then a few occasions.
What i’m seeing is on targets just flying straight and level, no maneuvering, no chaff, no ecm. Is some missiles just never even finding targets. Missiles sorting on targets more then 6 miles away. Never even pointing in the right direction. Despite getting 10+ updates.
Lets just look at the tomcat, how could the system ever engage a bomber stream? With the current BMS system you’d have missiles never even finding targets, missiles going for targets well outside the predicated target point.
note the miss was due to the missiles seeker angle tracking loop failing in flight. It had found the target but missed due to this failure. -
Guys,
what Max and JP are telling you is this:If you’d really(!) have something meaningful to share with us you’d for sure never(!) share your knowledge publically(!) in a forum like this.
So, what do you think others think about your ‘way of observation’?
-
I can only quote an USAF Viper driver who one told me that missiles are called missiles because they miss a lot.
If they would hit a lot they would be called hitiles
-
Mystery solved!
-
@Le_Beau Aaah , teh old wise man words of wisdom
But… somehow I AM persuaded that in 20yrs situation is changed … hitiles > missiles…
See those Rus>Ukr shots with R77-1 from +70km vs maneuvering targets (su27/m29)… and hits.
Of course that is 21st century tech, 4th-5th gen.With our (still 20th century) F4-A120 (B, C-x) series being old… well it is kinda in “the loop” with avail data. (percentages between 50%-85%)
But those percentages should be respected., even at current ranges. ~15nm.
I won’t even go there … F18+AWACS D/L guiding A120D(100 km), guess it is “Back from the future” techRanges were always a bit reduced in Falcon (drag,fuel)… but for that much “realism” allows.
Anyway it makes dogfighting much fun then what looks nowadays…Remember that yt song from those airforce guys… “no fun in dropping GBU’s from auto-pilot at 30k”
Still , U1/2 … I’ll be there.
just 22kopeyke -
Makes no sens to me.
If you can wait longer for U1, you can wait for U2.(was trying to quote Osprey’s post. This forum definitely doesn’t work for me in my Android smart phone using yo to date Mozilla browser)
-