U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression
-
@airtex2019 - if STT works like it does in RL, you shouldn’t be able to support anything but a single shot with it…which is NOT the purpose of an AIM-120.
STT is primarily a mode for support of AIM-7. That is what it was developed for.
-
@Stevie I normally shoot AIM-120 under DT-SAM mode (softlock). It is because it breaks lock very easily hence using STT (hardlock) to try further stabilize the radar track to avoid lock breaking as much as possible. But still radar lock breaks quite easily but this only happens in the range of 35nm+. When target is within 35nm, you can have a very stable lock under DT-SAM mode without any problem.
-
@Osprey - that’s actually more realistic. Using STT isn’t…unless you just want to get the radar funneled in on a single specific target and then transition to TWS for multiple shots within the volume.
You also need to manage your scan volume properly with TWS - tighter is better.
-
@Stevie
Didn’t we learn not to use TWS if we want a good pk? -
@Osprey @Stevie the other dimension to consider here is small, maneuvering fighters vs large, high-aspect bombers.
eg. if a bomber is coming directly toward you, is it reasonable acquire lock and fire at 35nm? maybe. fighter? maybe not. (idk)
and similar wrt TWS scenarios … is it reasonable to fire 2 (or more) at a group of large, high-aspect, non-maneuvering targets? maybe. but a group of fighters which will turn, drag and burn? maybe not.
Again I don’t know anything about RL doctrine or expected PK… just calling out that it’s a thing to aware of now, in BMS 4.36.x
-
@Stevie said in U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression:
@Osprey - that’s actually more realistic. Using STT isn’t…unless you just want to get the radar funneled in on a single specific target and then transition to TWS for multiple shots within the volume.
You also need to manage your scan volume properly with TWS - tighter is better.
TWS is not a firing mode in real and there is a good reason for that
-
@airtex2019 Why firing at 35nm+ is because the AIM-120C5 now is much more capable and has a much longer range capability If you fly in PvP against professional pilot with ID hostile regardless of highly maneuverable fighter or big fat bomber, i’m quite confident you would feel surprise that you would be dead already way before your missile goes husky or even before you launch your Fox3 at your comfortable usual range. First-launch-opportunity is what i’m talking here but need support from a same-level / capable / stable radar too.
-
@Mav-jp are SAM and TTS modes as effective as STT, for firing … or are they somewhat in between STT and TWS?
(And I say “firing” but really I mean supporting the missile guidance up until pitbull.)
-
@Mav-jp - try telling that to a RL fighter guy and see how far you get…or maybe the Viper’s TWS isn’t up to snuff with what I know?
-
@airtex2019 - this is actually a case where BMS needs further research…
-
@Stevie From what i heard, not suggested to fire under TWS either due to bigger error on track files. The error / higher level of inaccuracy come from interpolation from TWS. From what i heard, it is suggested to fire in DT-SAM or STT, mostly DT-SAM is very enough but if want to commit attacking with highest chance of reliable support / guidance on missile, STT is recommended. The only disadvantage of STT is that you lose radar SA on other contacts & that you would trigger enemy’s RWR so need to be very cautious when using STT.
STT is considered a hostile act even in normal peacetime so should be avoided as much as possible. This is what i heard but maybe some operates differently or have different regulations. But generally speaking I agree with Mav that TWS isn’t a suggested firing mode due to its bigger error. TWS is okay for multiple non maneuvering targets, but for highly maneuvering targets the track file would accumulate too much error resulting in poor missile guidance. -
@Stevie I don’t think that’s the case…
I could argue that you can’t rely on your logic as well because you just don’t know and haven’t checked what you say by RL pilots…
As said in a previous post, forget what you think you know about it and start over.
-
@MaxWaldorf - I work with RL fighter pilots of a living. For the last 38 years. So I check with them every day…
-
@Stevie do they give no consideration of the tactical scenario?
eg. incoming flight of bombers (fleet-defense scenario)
vs. engaging an opposing 4-ship CAP flight (strike escort scenario)And, assuming Navy … are we talking Rhino generation radar modes, or legacy Hornet generation?
I think the crux of the problem is the extrapolation of movement, between consecutive TWS scans painting the target(s).
So (I have no idea, just imagining) there’s a huge difference between extrapolating the path of an incoming bomber, and extrapolating the path of a fighter turning away / defending.
I can also imagine maybe there’s a huge generational advantage to the newer AESA radars, for this kind of thing?
-
@Stevie said in U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression:
@MaxWaldorf - I work with RL fighter pilots of a living. For the last 38 years. So I check with them every day…
Happy to get your sources confirmation but this is not what we’ve been told by our trusted sources…
TWS is fine for SA but not good for engagement (at least with the radar capacity BMS has modeled)
-
@Stevie IIRC, you have a lot of time with the AV-8 community. I would throw out there the AN/APG-65 (also legacy Hornets’ radar) is slightly bigger than the Viper’s AN/APG-68, which of course all things being equal does matter a little. As you know, that’s why the F-14/15 and Mig-25 have such big noses. With TWS, listening to the F-14 Tomcast, the processing hardware and software upgrade from the AN/AWG-9 to the AN/APG-71 made TWS a much better mode it seems in the F-14D than the A/B hearing the RIOs and pilots that flew both platforms. TWS seems to not be a launch mode with the AWG-9 but much liked with the APG-71.
It’s possible that the combo of the of the larger antenna, better processing, maybe even better gimbals for sweeps have made the Harrier/Hornet guys have better experience with TWS than the Viper’s APG-68 that has always been the USAF’s distant second platform for BVR. Then also there is the issue of supporting an actual launched AIM-120 is much different than simulating even in training and why so much time is spent on shot eval in debrief. That may also be why the usual default in MRM override of the Viper is RWS (if I’m remembering correctly this early in the morning).
But like you, I’m still curious why all this hype of TWS multiple contacts launch is so touted but not actually that useful. But of course, that happens a lot with military equipment, like the AIM-120’s and AGM-88’s “fire and forget” capability in general.
-
From my talkings with multiple IRL viper pilots, they’ve said they do not use TWS at all, it’s track quality is not very good and I’ve also heard it’s prone to exploitation. They use ST SAM, DT SAM, DTT and STT. In newer vipers they even removed the TMS right long command that switches between tws and rws and replaced it with something else.
-
@Snake122
Cant really speculate on the reason……. or whether it concerns all conditions.Fairly sure they stuck a smaller antenna on the 65 for the AV-8.
AWG-9 was much older 1960s tech even think it was before MPRF………APG-71 was the digital conversion so should have been better by order of magnitude.
apg-66/68 have always been digital ……Top end radars but limited by drives to keep costs low.
-
@Mav-jp AIM-120C5 most of the time working well. Have however experienced at times, the missile goes MPRF but strangely acts like a cheapshot, only at times not always, failing to track target. Pics and some short animated ACMIs from different angle both 3D and 2D below for your info. Do you perhaps know what could of be the reason? I am fully aware HPRF is only reliable for tracking high aspect / high closure rate target and is still likely to be notched / defeated. Would MPRF active missile somehow be defeated / break lock too? If i understand correctly when MPRF is active, it is a stable track that the missile would just track the target with its seeker all the way till it runs out of kinetic energy. But in the long range shots, it seems sometimes missile tracking fails even with MPRF active. Would like to hear your thoughts.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ViC6-ZSHgAC07a3t8BKsl0Z4ETa9FVOa/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/173YK5IgiMLSPLTT_e6W-zJGeLWrucIGy/view?usp=sharing
-
@Osprey for me it’s possible that the missile tracks lightning51 and not the f16.
In a campaign mission, i had a friendly kill with the aim120 updating its target in flight and hitting an allied helo near the ground behind my intended target.