Engaging multiple targets with aim-120 simultaneously
-
If all you have to deal with is two targets, then DT SAM is indeed superior. Though TWS will get a Slammer to pitbull, too, and after that you don’t care if your track quality is crap.
-
U must be in TWS.
No you don’t. Try it in RWS, it works …. what is called two target lock RWS-SAM? Something like that. I do it all the time , TWS is confusing - when lots of targets around, if not previous defined 2nd target you never know what target is next priority ,… but it is helpful sometimes.
Also switching to TWS from RWS breaks already defined 2 target lock sequenece done in RWS , it shouldn’t … not big deal. -
No you don’t. Try it in RWS, it works …. what is called two target lock RWS-SAM? Something like that. I do it all the time , TWS is confusing - when lots of targets around, if not previous defined 2nd target you never know what target is next priority ,… but it is helpful sometimes.
Also switching to TWS from RWS breaks already defined 2 target lock sequenece done in RWS , it shouldn’t … not big deal.I’ve always preferred two target tracking as well.
-
OK, you are right…it works just fine with two targets.
I was flying Nordic TE with two gripens vs 4 bandits too much
I agree in dense campaigns RWS multitargeting is much more safe regarding courtmartial… -
If all you have to deal with is two targets, then DT SAM is indeed superior. Though TWS will get a Slammer to pitbull, too, and after that you don’t care if your track quality is crap.
This may be the case in BMS, but IRL the slammer doesnt just ignore the radar information from the launcher when it gets to active range. The highest probability of kill is from an STT track maintained all the way until impact.
Of course, BMS has its differences in this regard.
No you don’t. Try it in RWS, it works …. what is called two target lock RWS-SAM?
From RWS, putting the ACQ over a contact and TMS up once puts the radar into ST SAM. ST SAM is basically RWS, but additionally searching a smaller volume than RWS can, while also monitoring the tracked target, with dwell times far lower than STT. Placing the ACQ over another contact, and a single TMS up, puts the radar in DT SAM, and the radar will monitor both tracked targets, while continuing to search using RWS.
If the radar workload increases, or one of the contacts gets too close, the radar will switch automatically into another mode, probably DTT, depending on which radar is installed and which tape is installed.
-
This post is deleted! -
Y’all do know that the BMS -34 finally got a dedicated FCR chapter for the 4.34 release?
I see a lot of questions being posted which do make me wonder
-
Think , that even you’re in (RWS)-DT , when one of the bugged targets enters <10nm , radar will break the lock of the 2nd target and GO STT (auto) with the closer target , same as with only one target bugged. It will drop second track.
As TWS , 1st contact should be marked with * (star) , 2nd and further should have priority number inside “triangle” , so 2nd starts with “1” , 3rd have “2” … etc , … how much depends on TWS radar type , 8/16 - 8 are given priority for “shoot on each press” / 16 are tracked - again, depends on radar , year/tech.
So, the * - star , moves to next target which is TO BE fired upon , and numbering “rotates” in some respect to the priority , … well, PRIORITY , is probably aspect and closure rate , maybe also IFF and NCTR related - that’s stuff which isn’t in “terrorist cookbook” -
Think , that even you’re in (RWS)-DT , when one of the bugged targets enters <10nm , radar will break the lock of the 2nd target and GO STT (auto) with the closer target , same as with only one target bugged. It will drop second track.
You don’t need to think, or guess, it’s all in the FCR chapter I referenced above. Isn’t it better to send people to the correct information?
In this case see 1.4.4.9.5 SAM Track page 69.
And for the real manual stalwarts the chapter even explains where the current modelling is lacking some of the features of the real AN/APG-68**(V)5** FCR. Hint: the current A-A FCR is much more complete than the A-G FCR
-
This may be the case in BMS, but IRL the slammer doesnt just ignore the radar information from the launcher when it gets to active range. The highest probability of kill is from an STT track maintained all the way until impact.
Of course, BMS has its differences in this regard.
Is that really all that useful in a real situation? In a real fight, I’d imagine you want to drag as soon after pitbull as possible. Continuing to update the missile after pitbull seems like a risky move to me, unless you know for sure your target isn’t going to shoot back at that range, and that’s hard to know for sure.
-
A good video would mean better than thousand words…
-
Is that really all that useful in a real situation? In a real fight, I’d imagine you want to drag as soon after pitbull as possible. Continuing to update the missile after pitbull seems like a risky move to me, unless you know for sure your target isn’t going to shoot back at that range, and that’s hard to know for sure.
That’s why today’s AESA radars have gimbals more then 180deg ,… technically you are moving away from the target and ‘feeding’ the missile /
-
You don’t need to think, or guess, it’s all in the FCR chapter I referenced above. Isn’t it better to send people to the correct information?
In this case see 1.4.4.9.5 SAM Track page 69.
And for the real manual stalwarts the chapter even explains where the current modelling is lacking some of the features of the real AN/APG-68**(V)5** FCR. Hint: the current A-A FCR is much more complete than the A-G FCR
I don’t need to think that in manuals everything works as advertised. :panda:
-
That’s why today’s AESA radars have gimbals more then 180deg ,… technically you are moving away from the target and ‘feeding’ the missile /
Actually, a single AESA radar can’t do that. You can, however, add another antenna in the back of the plane.
Of course, it’s a moot point because we’re flying the F-16, not the F-22 here, not to mention an AESA radar would have completely different mechanization than a mechanically scanned one or even a PESA.
-
I think modern EF and GripenE have mechanized AESA 200° wide IIRC vs fixed 120° F35. On the other hand SU-35 PESA should be 240° !?.
-
Anything greater than 120° needs to be mechanized, because the further you go off to the side, the smaller the “effective” antenna size becomes, causing all sorts of trouble. With mechanical scanning the only limitations are the room under the radome and the need to avoid frying the pilot. I suppose it’s possible they went with that in some recent versions.
-
Is that really all that useful in a real situation? In a real fight, I’d imagine you want to drag as soon after pitbull as possible. Continuing to update the missile after pitbull seems like a risky move to me, unless you know for sure your target isn’t going to shoot back at that range, and that’s hard to know for sure.
Those ‘real situations’ come back to tactics discussions, and we arent going to get anything other than speculation on these fora, on that topic.
-
Actually, a single AESA radar can’t do that. You can, however, add another antenna in the back of the plane.
Of course, it’s a moot point because we’re flying the F-16, not the F-22 here, not to mention an AESA radar would have completely different mechanization than a mechanically scanned one or even a PESA.
Russian PESA and the radar on the Gripen NG (E/F) can be mechanically steered. With ESA + mecha steering you can have about 110-120 deg azimuth scan capability. It is also possible with AESA because Gripen will have AESA type radar.
-
Those ‘real situations’ come back to tactics discussions, and we arent going to get anything other than speculation on these fora, on that topic.
Well, as far as I’m concerned, if it works in BMS against human pilots, chances are it’s a tactic in reality. Besides, that not getting an Adder to the face takes priority over shoring up PK by a few percentage points seems like a reasonable inference.
-
Anything greater than 120° needs to be mechanized, because the further you go off to the side, the smaller the “effective” antenna size becomes, causing all sorts of trouble. With mechanical scanning the only limitations are the room under the radome and the need to avoid frying the pilot. I suppose it’s possible they went with that in some recent versions.
Yeah, but as comrade @Molnibalage says , Mecha Su-30/33/35 radar combines AESA ‘squares/modules’ but +mechanically steered, giving you 120deg to a single side …
(also, unconfirmed , but new blocks F16 and F18 are in the same soup, don’t know are the aesa radars mechanically driven/supported , but gimbals are much bigger . -> especially for this situations)You are forgetting that AESA directs energy from modules on the antennae array , so combining several modules you have control how much output and refresh you’re giving to certain spot.
So, by putting your target to 110-120 , you are ‘giving him’ the whole (L/R) edge vertical of modules , and IHMO , that is enough for keeping him painted , at least roughly to support general missile direction update.
Yep , modern V gen fighters are a ‘beach’