Raytheon (Litton) AN/ALR-93(V)1 RWR symbols

[gza036]

Flying the HAF Block 52+ CFT
Question about the unusual RWR
34-1 page 56,57

My understanding is 0 to 9 corresponds to a different PRI value (Pulse repetition interval)… then you have to know which aircraft use which band to decipher what is on your RWR

Need a master key on which aircraft and SAMs use which bands/PRI
Anyone have this info to share?
Also is this accurate to real life?

[Blu3wolf]

Good luck with getting an answer to that last question.

Your picture says that is for unknown emitters, so any emitters which are codified in the threat library should get its own symbol not from this table. This would be for emitters which are not known.

[TeeSquare]

Look in The Vault page 47.

https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?26874-Threat-Guide&highlight=Threat+guide

[gza036]

Wow that’s great, I’ve used the Vault forever and never seen that
I’ve noticed one problem though

I believe a CW2 is an SA-5

Also how about the others: 8, 91*
Can anyone walk me through what they mean?

[gza036]

[Marvin157th]

Here is a reference card I made a while ago. This might help.

http://www.agoge-tactical.com/files/ALR93_REF_CARD_VII.pdf

[soldano]

@Marvin157th:

Here is a reference card I made a while ago. This might help.

http://www.agoge-tactical.com/files/ALR93_REF_CARD_VII.pdf

Is that chart updated to the actual BMS version ?

[Krause]

@soldano:

Is that chart updated to the actual BMS version ?

I can’t believe this is a real RWR - it’s so counter intuitive and unlike every other RWR I have doubt any pilot would trust it in combat. IN a task saturated environment where someone is trying to kill you, I can’t imagine trying to make sense of this. After awhile you’d get it down by memory, but there are still duplicates on that table.

“Hold on bro, i’m getting a SAM fired at me, let me look at this table for 15 seconds and then make a guess on what system it is”

p.s. this PDF you made should go into the BMS documentation IMO

[Marvin157th]

@soldano:

Is that chart updated to the actual BMS version ?

Yes it is

[white_fang]

This post is deleted!

[ataribaby]

@Krause:

I can’t believe this is a real RWR - it’s so counter intuitive and unlike every other RWR I have doubt any pilot would trust it in combat. IN a task saturated environment where someone is trying to kill you, I can’t imagine trying to make sense of this. After awhile you’d get it down by memory, but there are still duplicates on that table.

“Hold on bro, i’m getting a SAM fired at me, let me look at this table for 15 seconds and then make a guess on what system it is”

p.s. this PDF you made should go into the BMS documentation IMO

Yes it is real RWR as you see it in Falcon BMS. It is all about how end user set his contacts library (what is not possible in Falcon BMS and libraries are hardcoded) and this info is highly classified and impossible to obtain. Manuals doesn’t reflect customized libraries of end users. What is in game is sort of default library. I had countless sleepless nights when implemented all RWR types from thin air info and don’t want be dragged into arguing what is or what is not real. Get it as is or don’t fly that blocks. It is just game after all.

[white_fang]

Ahh, now I know who’s guilty for bug/superbug rwr not showing naval radars… I’ve opened the thread ~6months ago bout that. well, I know also that it wasn’t finished at the time of .33 update.

So I’m pointing that again…, next update? Please.

otoh, I understand that whole rwr section is hardcoded from the original F4 and (code) , but now is different game altogether, more birds, more rwr’s , … so, why not hard-code only engine(s) for different types of rwr’s , and leave display controls for types in open configuration .dat(s) ?
Something close to that RwrSim in toolz dir , xml scripts.
But I don’t mean ‘too’ open , so discouraging any miss use and possible ‘cheat’ . *simple database check for MP or similar … just in hard lines.
eg. aircraft dat’s (Sim) are already checked for MP if using configuration switch , so just extend check to rwr .dat’s too., or have faith

Possible …(in 3-4wks) ?

Cheers

[Blu3wolf]

The ability to set custom threat libraries would be a great step in the right direction for making a more complex, more realistic EW environment. I would expect that to require a lot of effort on the part of the coders, though - not something that is likely to happen in the near future, perhaps.

[Dee-Jay]

@gza036:

Need a master key on which aircraft and SAMs use which bands/PRI

This type of RWR do not have programable libraries , it shows “crude” informations.
You can’t really allocate an information to a system because IRL systems are working on serveral freq / pri depending on their mode, distance … etc … so for a single system, you may have several different informations displayed alternatively or simultaneously(for instance, the straight flush is “one single radar system” but has several antennas emitting at the same time). But by knowing radar general physics, you may anticipate a guidance or tracking mode … (Usually, high pri = close distance/angular precision/good resolution/velocity measurement accuracy … -> tracking or guidance mode.)

Note, in BMS, freq/pri for AA radar are not evolutive.

[Dee-Jay]

@Krause:

I can’t believe this is a real RWR … -

It is. And IRL it is even worse because IRL you have real ambiguities which are more of less “unpredictable”

RWR is faaaar from being a perfect tool, and in BMS they still are over modelled. Suggesting to read "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals"

[Dee-Jay]

@white_fang:

Ahh, now I know who’s guilty for bug/superbug rwr not showing naval radars… I’ve opened the thread ~6months ago bout that. well, I know also that it wasn’t finished at the time of .33 update.

So I’m pointing that again…, next update? Please.

otoh, I understand that whole rwr section is hardcoded from the original F4 and (code) , but now is different game altogether, more birds, more rwr’s , … so, why not hard-code only engine(s) for different types of rwr’s , and leave display controls for types in open configuration .dat(s) ?
Something close to that RwrSim in toolz dir , xml scripts.
But I don’t mean ‘too’ open , so discouraging any miss use and possible ‘cheat’ . *simple database check for MP or similar … just in hard lines.
eg. aircraft dat’s (Sim) are already checked for MP if using configuration switch , so just extend check to rwr .dat’s too., or have faith

Possible …(in 3-4wks) ?

Cheers

@Blu3wolf:

The ability to set custom threat libraries would be a great step in the right direction for making a more complex, more realistic EW environment. I would expect that to require a lot of effort on the part of the coders, though - not something that is likely to happen in the near future, perhaps.

Out of BMS scope.

We can’t implement stuff as they are IRL in all their details. BMS goal is not to simulate the work of intel officers and since we won’t simulate radar freq agilities, giving the ability of “user defined libraries” is overkill and would break what we tried to implement -> Instrument limitations + Intel’s accuracy vs electronic warfare fog …

Rather than doing this, we can also revert to the old perfect 4.32 RWR, it will have the same effect.
So to say, going into the data and read them is already cheating … Fortunately, things has been well made and it wont be enough to guaranty a perfect SA on RWR

Having the total control would brings you away from realism. And I guess that this is not what you want.

[Blu3wolf]

Well no, I think you are mistaken there. user defined libraries would not automatically break instrument limitations, nor the fog of war for ELINT - but it would require a lot of work to create EW details which are simply not present in the sim. It would however pave the way for more realistic jamming and radar behavior…

[Dee-Jay]

@Blu3wolf:

Well no, I think you are mistaken there. user defined libraries would not automatically break instrument limitations, nor the fog of war for ELINT - but it would require a lot of work to create EW details which are simply not present in the sim. It would however pave the way for more realistic jamming and radar behavior…

Ok. But would require a cryped database or hardcoded radar data. Out of scope (at least, for the moment).

[Blu3wolf]

@Dee-Jay:

Ok. But would require a cryped database or hardcoded radar data. Out of scope (at least, for the moment).

Yes, Im not suggesting this should be worked on right now, obviously. I would just urge it not be dismissed out of hand.

I dont think you would need hardcoded radar data - couldnt this be externalised into radardata files, much like aircraft performance is? Some elint stuff would end up being hardcoded I suspect, radio transmissions or datalinks, for example - but then things specific to each radar could be defined on a per aircraft basis. Of course, then the issue would be the data itself. The actual data for much of this is not public and should not become public any time soon. You could create plausible data based on public information, to create realistic behavior with unreal data, and that would be an improvement on the current situation - but it would be a very large undertaking. Perhaps it will get looked at for inclusion with BMS 6.78, along with link 16, updated radar, AIFF, and an ABM/AWACS operator screen

[Dee-Jay]

Ok. 3 - 4 weeks/years.