U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression
-
@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.
-
@ericfa2a It’s definitely not. Lightning flights are still on the ground and 20+nm away.
-
@Osprey I think missile seeker gimbal-limits are modeled better, now.
I can’t tell if that’s what’s happening in your acmi. But seems plausible.
-
Not sure if the missile should exceed gimbal limit in order to fly a pure lead pursuit tho… seems better for the missile to always try to keep target within its gimbal limit?
Probably it wb a very low p/k situation either way.
-
@airtex2019 totally agree that the gimbal limit or missile FOV is modeled much better and more realistic now. Very great simulation indeed. The question is that when missile goes MPRF, meaning target is within missile FOV and that missile seeker has successfully acquired and tracked the target for terminal guidance - how come still ending up cheapshot. If it was meant to be cheapshot, missile seeker would of not acquire the target, meaning it would of never enter MPRF active state. In other words, is evading a MPRF active missile something possible by trying notch / breaking lock method? I don’t think so. I think the only way to survive is to drag it to beat the missile kinetic energy. I feel it’s a bit not right but I must say most of the time the missile is working well.
-
@Osprey Yes you are right, besides there is no radar line between the two… my bad.
Can you share the full ACMI ? because there is 10 seconds between pitbull and loss of track images?
Edit : sorry i see the GiF below.
It’s possible that the chaff plus the beam disturb the seeker to the point when it has to re-acquire you, your course puts you beyond seeker limit.
Is the AIM-120 totally immune to chaff ?
-
@Osprey said in U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression:
@airtex2019 totally agree that the gimbal limit or missile FOV is modeled much better and more realistic now. Very great simulation indeed. The question is that when missile goes MPRF, meaning target is within missile FOV and that missile seeker has successfully acquired and tracked the target for terminal guidance - how come still ending up cheapshot. If it was meant to be cheapshot, missile seeker would of not acquire the target, meaning it would of never enter MPRF active state. In other words, is evading a MPRF active missile something possible by trying notch / breaking lock method? I don’t think so. I think the only way to survive is to drag it to beat the missile kinetic energy. I feel it’s a bit not right but I must say most of the time the missile is working well.
There is a very very tiny chance that a chaff prevent MPRF aquisition , this is coded