@Mav-jp These angle deviations should be incredible small, fractions of a degree, same with the range deviations. Additionally your linked post are just percentages can’t really convert that into how those equal 15+degrees of angle error.
Posts made by nighthawk2174
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
@Mav-jp I fail to see how this is relevant to what I posted. I’m talking radar physics and how these systems actually work not what your model actual is right now.
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
@Snake122 The angular resolution and accuracy in both range and angle of the radar will be no different between rws and tws. What tws does is it stores the last set of track data in a memory bank then when it goes over the same area it will correlate what it sees with the previous tracks using a correlation algorithm. Beyond this it is not doing anything special that RWS/SAM already don’t do. These radars the 68 and up will have absolutely no issues once so ever with the processing power needed for this task. TWS is set up so that it should go over the same area every 2 seconds or so, this is enough for accurate tracking especially for the case I showed where they were just flying level and straight. What issues a radar may have in its correlation algorithms handling maneuvering targets does not explain the massive angular and range errors being added to the missiles.
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
The thing that makes no sense with this model is the degree of both range and angular error. For example below:
It make 0 sense that there are angular errors this large, TWS uses the same exact waveform as RWS and SAM. If a radar had this level of angular inaccuracy it would literally be unusable as an FCR. Lets be clear engaging multiple targets with TWS was a thing demonstrated successfully in the 60’s. TWS can have issues with correlation algo’s but ranging and angle accuracy will not be one of these issues.
the above is from U2 also.
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
@Tomcatter31 The one that missed was due to a mechanical failure in the seeker head. I have a FOIA’d document that disscused that.
-
RE: RWR sound mod question
@Dee-Jay @white_fang We won’t be able to get actual prf’s for newer radars and irl they would be highly variable anyway. In STT modern radars would use a continually variable medium PRF to make sure the target is not obscured by the MLC. I think that the best one could do is just make an educated guess. I really like the work BeamScanner on the DCS forums has done and i’m trying to replicate his work so that I can freely use it in my own mods or even provide it for BMS in general see below link for his AMRAAM/SU27/F15/F16 sounds. The more recent his work the better as it took him time to nail down RWR distortions:
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/247435-dcs-f-14a-rwr-upgrades-amp-development/page/2/#comment-4780520
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/282609-rwr-audio-mod-poll/#comment-5063238
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/276319-alr-56m-tones/page/2/#comment-5062059
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/276319-alr-56m-tones/?do=findComment&comment=5062059 -
RE: RWR sound mod question
@Dee-Jay Ok i’ll see what I can get working thanks
-
RE: RWR sound mod question
@Dee-Jay I am familiar with the document and have already read it. As far as anyone can tell the ARL-56 uses PRF audio. As such there will be a difference in tones between search and track. Search will be a momentary spike and will be operating off a different set of PRF’s then track. This will make an audible difference between different radar states. This is why the SA2 sounds are different, its going into different PRF’s at different stages of its engagement profile. Additionally for jets with CWD transmitters like the F4 you will get this tone in addition to the radars own unique PRF. I have gone through and picked out the tones from youtube videos to use as these are more accurate then the current selection of sounds and imo sound better.
-
RWR sound mod question
I’m re-making one of my modded theaters for 4.37 and I want to add separate tones for a/a radars search and lock phases. I found a few tones off of youtube that i’m using. But when I try to give it multiple tones by copying what the SA2 does in its radar file I get no sounds in game for search or tracking. Is this just not a thing for a/a radars?
-
RE: AIM 120
@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. -
RE: AIM 120
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.
-
RE: AIM 120
@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.
-
RE: 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.
-
RE: AIM 120
@Mav-jp I’m assuming it will attempt to pick the target which is the closest to the predicted target point and to the expected doppler?
-
RE: RWR in HMCS
DCS also has the issue (and BMS does as well but not as bad) almost all of the jets having RCS’s that are way to low. The flanker being at 5m^2 in DCS is just not accurate. BMS isn’t much better, 8.5m^2, but it’s at least better.
-
RE: Vandal's Files and Checklists
I’m confused about this lofting method, as it seems incredibly inefficient and defeats the entire purpose of lofting in the first place.
You’re dumping all your speed to perform this Immelmann after release, essentially leaving yourself 100% wide open for retaliation from the very thing you’re lofting against.
Elaborate more, pls.
Not to mention without the use of guided munitions the accuracy of this type of delivery is just… bad… to say the absolute minimum. And even with guided… I don’t think this adds that much range, it’d just be safer and better to get higher and faster.
-
RE: Israel 1980s - UOAF edition
Now that there is a theater to work from we’ll look into it. I also heard that there are 80’s scenarios for the default theater now as well.
-
RE: Falcon BMS Alternative Launcher (Easy Setup, Keep Joystick Assignments)
So I’m having an issue I drop the hub and hub.exe.config into the x86 folder yet the alternate launcher won’t launch I click on it and nothing happens and I’m not sure why it’s not working.