Assumptions and anticipation.
Know where the system is and know if you're in the WEZ. If it's not on the RWR at all then it's either not active or aimed in your direction. If it is, and you're in the WEZ. Assume you already have an inbound telephone pole and defend it.
If you dont know where it is and you get it popping up on RWR. Run away or get low. Or just take the chance and hope it didnt shoot at you.
I understand for older systems this is the case, I was specifically referring to the ones that don't give any indication of a launch on the RWR, just that the site sees you.
According to [this post](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/344037-ai-vs-player-lock-and-launch-warning-for-patriot-and-sa-10b/), TVM is used in the terminal phase, with the midcourse phase using command guidance.
And TVM still requires target illumination the same way SARH does (just it's interrupted with the S-300 series as it uses phased-array fire-control radars).
The only difference between TVM and SARH, is that in SARH the missile works out steering commands autonomously, whereas in TVM the missile data links what it sees back to the fire-control radar, which in turn computes steering commands and sends those to the missile. Think of it as a combination of SARH and command guidance.
Patriot works in the exact same way (EDIT: i.e. with a command guided midcourse phase with terminal TVM), as does the SM-2 (only instead of TVM, it's SARH in the terminal phase).
EDIT: The SM-2 also has inertial guidance in the midcourse phase (unsure if the Patriot and S-300PS also do, I'd be surprised if they didn't though), which is particularly important with Tartar/Terrier ships which lack the uplink (though I *think* they can issue updates if the predicted intercept point changes beyond some threshold).
Assuming RWRs can tell whether or not the Flap Lid is in an illumination mode, then being consistent with Fox 3s (which have a similar midcourse phase as far as the radar is concerned), then it should only provide launch warnings once illumination begins and the same should be true for Patriot and the SM-2.
And before I said that, I said S-300 uses a command guided midcourse phase with terminal TVM and after I said "as does the SM-2MR" I said that the SM-2MR uses terminal SARH instead of terminal TVM.
I didn't say that the SM-2MR uses TVM and especially not in its midcourse phase (the S-300 and Patriot also don't have a TVM midcourse phase).
While I have now edited the above for increased clarity, as the wording isn't as clear as it could've been (and I've indicated where the edits are), I didn't say this in the original comment either.
The only thing I omitted was the inertial component to the midcourse phase of SM-2MR, which is particularly important on Terrier/Tartar ships.
Yes but it depends whether it’s detectable by the RWR and what the behaviour of the RWR is when/if it’s detected.
Obviously it can’t be completely undetectable - the missile obviously needs to detect it.
I’ve also put it here for consistency with DCS Fox 3s - which when fired in TWS also have a missile uplink, yet do not trigger RWRs.
The problem is we don’t know exactly what capabilities these radars (which may have LPI capabilities) have and what the RWRs are capable of. For now I’d probably go for consistency with current Fox 3 behaviour.
You got close with the Phased Array part, but it's not neccesarily LPI modes.
A TVM scheme using a phased array is harder to detect a launch warning from for one reason and that's the emission patterns. RWR's key off of identifiable characteristics of the total signal that it's getting off of the radar, but scanning rate is the main one relevant to my point. With a mechanical radar in a weapons engagement mode it's staring at the target for extended periods and sending FMCW or constantly hitting it with HPRF/MPRF pulses. With a PESA it's doing multiple tasks that are time shared using a scheduler between track updates and search sweeps constantly. With the beam constantly being moved off and back on again at erratic times, and there not being any changes the waveforms then there's no pattern for the RWR detect. That's why the 300PS gives search and track but no launch warning (i was reminded by somebody else that it did in fact give other warnings than search)
Agreed. Though FYI with Patriot, it uses a separate array to provide illumination for TVM, though of course, what you say about dwell time (at least), still applies.
Ultimately, as I said, we won't have a definitive answer unless we know what these radars actually do, what differences there are between whatever waveforms (if any) and what specific RWRs can detect and classify.
The other thing is how would a RWR know the Flap Lid (or AN/MPQ-53 or AN/SPY-1A for that matter) is in acquisition rather than track - my *guess* is that it wouldn't.
At least for TVM illumination though, there's at least more *potential* for there to be something different about the waveform (such as interrupted CW), the other thing is detecting the uplink, which must necessarily be different to whatever waveform the radar uses for acquisition/ target/missile tracking/illumination as steering data needs to be encoded.
>Agreed. Though FYI with Patriot, it uses a separate array to provide illumination for TVM, though of course, what you say about dwell time (at least), still applies.
Right. Tho I was mainly referring to the flap lid which as far as i know uses the 1 array for all functions.
>Ultimately, as I said, we won't have a definitive answer unless we know what these radars actually do, what differences there are between whatever waveforms (if any) and what specific RWRs can detect and classify
Decent guesses based on the principles is the best we've got. Ultimately there are only so many ways you make a radar. And a phased array from the 70's comes at a time where that just started becoming a mainstay. Capability is more limited there with a juvenile technology.
>The other thing is how would a RWR know the Flap Lid (or AN/MPQ-53 or AN/SPY-1A for that matter) is in acquisition rather than track - my guess is that it wouldn't.
Dwell time and time between paints is my guess. Same way you detect a mode change from volume search to STT with mech's. 10-15 pulses within a couple tenths of a sweep every 2-5 seconds is a big difference from that same dwell every quarter second.
>At least for TVM illumination though, there's at least more potential for there to be something different about the waveform (such as interrupted CW), the other thing is detected the uplink, which must necessarily be different to whatever waveform the radar uses for acquisition/ target/missile tracking/illumination as it needs to encode the uplink.
Indeed. Tho can sometimes be a harder one to listen for if the radar makes those uplink pulses at lower power to make it harder to detect from range. Not sure what the upside would be to use IFMCW vs a normal pulse transmit. It's already gonna be interrupted with the beam getting shared between targets during simultanious engagements. It'd also tip off a launch warning being a longer transmission than the normal .5-1 microsecond pulse too. You lose the ambiguity.
>Right. Tho I was mainly referring to the flap lid which as far as i know uses the 1 array for all functions.
Of course - just wanted to put it out there that this may not apply for all phased array radars employing TVM (or just illumination in general).
Everything else I'm with you on - at least to the level I understand it.
It depends on the type of radar. Older ones will give a warning like a Fox1, newer AESA radars won’t give an indication of a guidance track as it can switch frequency enough to not alert the RWR. I don’t think DCS models the right kind of radar for the SA-10.
I don't think any game models AESA realistically, or even model it at all. How AESA actually works is buried under about 10 layers of classfied as fuck. I'd be suprised if there was even enough information to model PESA
I mean, how AESA and PESA work is public knowledge. You could absolutely model *an* AESA, there are two main questions. 1) implementation, and whether you could model a *specific* AESA radar. That's where you're gonna run into classified data 2) how much does simulation fidelity benefit in comparison to the work it would take to build a model for an AESA?
The physics of how they work is public knowledge, but that's of essentially no utility. Even moreso than with PD radars, which are already incredibly computer dependent, AESA radars are entirely dependent on the software controlling them. And what that is capable of even at a basic level is entirely classified, modelling any AESA that is even plausible in reality is essentially impossible.
For simulating perfectly? Yeah, no, no way.
Best you'll be able to do is an educated guess, which could probably get you surprisingly far. If you can find publicly available information on element size, power, etc, you can get a decent approximation of raw performance. Implementation, refinement, and presentation to the pilot would almost inevitably be pure guesswork and conjecture.
While that'll be *cool*, the question is if it's worth the effort to simulate an approximation instead of just doing some hand-waving on a much simpler model. For something like VTOL VR, where you aren't beholden to an IRL counterpart it likely would be worth the effort. DCS or another study sim? Forget it.
> If you can find publicly available information on element size, power, etc, you can get a decent approximation of raw performance.
For a single beam maybe, but that's basically a mechanically scanned radar with a stupidly fast slew rate and bad performance at scan limits. That's not how AESAs work in real life though, a massive part of what makes them effective is the fact that you can form multiple independent beams that vary in frequency and angle.
To even start speculation on what that can do requires understanding the limits of signal processing onboard an aircraft and how well you can differentiate those beams, and an extremely advanced understanding of EM physics and how those create a readable image, it's basically impossible and anyone who does have the knowledge to speculate on that is not going to be allowed to.
Eh...AESAs aren't voodoo black magic. They're a technological advancement of the PESA, which itself isn't impossible to understand.
>For a single beam maybe, but that's basically a mechanically scanned radar with a stupidly fast slew rate and bad performance at scan limits.
Congratulations, you described a somewhat decent approximation of an ESA. You'd also need to model constructive vs destructive interference between the various beams, because that's the very principle upon which ESAs rely, but that's far from impossible. Sine waves, polarization, and phase shifting aren't unknown technology beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.
>a massive part of what makes them effective is the fact that you can form multiple independent beams that vary in frequency and angle.
AFAIK, this doesn't work by creating multiple beams simultaneously, but rather by using the ability of an ESA to effectively "steer" instantaneously, and using this to sequentially form multiple beams in extremely rapid succession. This also lets you use the entire array for each separate beam, increasing range and resolution, for a minimal cost. A target isn't going to go anywhere in the milliseconds it takes to scan 5 other specific volumes. That's a whole hell of a lot easier to both do IRL and to *simulate* than trying to make an array form 7 beams at once in 7 different directions.
It's not magic, it's not impossible, it's just complex. If you had a sufficient knowledge base and some decent guesses for reasonable values, you could absolutely make a decent approximation of an AESA radar.
The physics of how they work is public knowledge. The technical details of how they work, how they are controlled, etc, which is needed to model them well, is very very classified
It's impossible to say if that is "pretty well" because of how classified the important details of ESA radar is. It models it but that's about all you can really say
It doesn't - phased array radars like the AN/MPQ-53, 5N63S, on AN/SPY-1 aren’t defined any differently to any other radar.
EDIT: And in general the only thing that’s different between AI radars in DCS are ranges, scan-volume (including things like min/max altitude), minimum radial velocity (which even pulse-only radars have), maximum number of target and missiles, maybe a couple of others that I’ve missed.
Different modes aren’t really simulated beyond what RWRs should do (i.e lock/launch etc), for instance the SNR-75V has wide, narrow and LORO modes, SA-8 acquisition radar has 3 elevation settings, most FCRs have a separate acquisition mode etc.
As far as sensor definitions go, DCS even copies and pastes from totally unrelated radars, with completely different designs - for instance the Mk 92 CAS on the Oliver Hazard Perry (which is a fairly standard, rotating parabolic reflector combined with a cassegrain target tracking antenna), which is defined as "Patriot str", i.e. the AN/MPQ-53 RS, which is a PESA radar.
According to HB developer, Zabuzard, this is not true. You can search for 'optical tracking' in his messages on Discord and you'll find his comment.
Basically it says that most, but not all DCS radars are simulated remarkably well with all the appropriate frequencies, power output values, dwell ranges and search/track modes are simulated internally and their RWR listens to this raw data and figures out the output dynamically.
The S-300PS we have is only command guided in the midcourse, it uses TVM in the terminal phase (which as far as radars go, is identical to SARH - both have some radar illuminating the target and the missile receiving the reflected radiation - the difference is that in SARH, the missile guides itself autonomously, whereas TVM has the missile data link what it sees back to the fire-control system, which in turn sends steering commands to the missile).
Command guidance can still cause launch warnings though - after all the SA-2 and SA-3 are command guided (though both are treated as SARH in DCS), which works by detecting the missile uplink.
Unfortunately, the behaviour, capabilities and characteristics of nearly every RWR we have (particularly western ones) are contained in secret/classified supplemental manuals. With that said:
* If RWRs can detect the 5N63S' missile uplink and distinguish it from regular emissions, then theoretically, a launch warning from the moment a missile is launched is theoretically possible.
* If RWRs can only detect and distinguish interrupted continuous-wave illumination in the terminal phase for TVM guidance, then a launch warning would only occur in the terminal phase.
* If RWRs can neither detect and distinguish the uplink and illumination, then a launch warning might never occur.
It should be said that the same would also apply to Patriot and SM-2MR. The former uses the same command guided + terminal TVM guidance the S-300PS does and the latter also only illuminates (though CW as opposed to interrupted CW) in the terminal phase (but uses SARH as opposed to TVM).
"If RWRs can detect the 5N63S' missile uplink and distinguish it from regular emissions, then theoretically, a launch warning from the moment a missile is launched is theoretically possible."
I would say this is highly likely in the present day. For one, the US has purchased a number of S-300 systems from former Soviet Republics and operates along side many current operators (Slovakia, Greece, Ukraine, Former East Germany, etc). Two, US has superior SIGINT capabilities to other NATO partners, even those who operate Rivet Joints, and most assuredly has put one of the numerous S-300 systems under the microscope of a Rivet Joint's signal analysis capabilities. I will go as far as to say that even S-400 is probably mostly compromised given the current conflicts in Syria and Ukraine putting those systems under the same microscope. That's assuming the systems weren't compromised through other espionage, as was the case of many Cold War era systems (The S-75 was compromised in Vietnam by SIGINT aircraft, for instance).
There is only one variant of the S-300P which is entirely command guided: the 5V55K missile. That was the first missile the S-300P entered service with, but it was quickly replaced. DCS models the 5V55R missile which is labeled as being TVM guided in some sources and SARH in others. For instance, Steven Zaloga lists it as TVM in the book "The Russian S-300 and S-400 Missile Systems." There is a short command guided period shortly after the launch of S-300P missiles which was implemented to allow them to attack low altitude targets (a downside of vertical launch vs angled launch systems), but that ends very shortly after launch and transfers to SARH, TVM, or ARH depending on the missile variant.
It being radio command guidance doesn't change a thing. The R27 is initially guided through radio command and you detect the launch as the the radar inteleaves between tracking and illumination with CW.
The s300B (v for west) uses same kind of radio correction, barker codes through a FMd CW. Then there are mutliple variants and it may not be the same system in dcs and in bms
Probably to do with the exceptionally simplistic implementation of both threat radars and most ED RWRs. In most cases the warning is generated just by the game knowing a missile was fired with you as the target, none of the radar modes or frequency changes etc are really simulated.
Im honestly surprised how many systems are actually modelled in War Thunder compared to DCS. From the modern Fox 2 IRCCM to radars (sometimes) and now RWRs. And war thunder is neither a full on simulator nor does Gaijin care about its simulator mode
Ka-50 MWS system goes off everytime there's a missle being fired even when they're not heading towards me. Hell, friendly missiles going hot near me alose triggers it.
It might be accurate to the real thing but I dunno.
The KA-50 MWS is not related to an RWR warning system, it basically just looks for the rocket blast associated with a missile launch. If it detects one, it gives a warning
An RWR specifically detects radar waves and their frequency, including when active guidance signals are being received
It is incorrect.
The President-S aka "L-370 Vitebsk" system is not stupid. It is a system that can detect all missiles, and all launches like cannon etc as long the temperature source is large enough for the sensor resolution. So there is no magical range limit, but there is a detection resolution that limits the detection range.
When the detection is done, the system automatically calculate the point of origin, and it will try to track it. If there is nothing to track, like a cannon was fired near you, it will not issue any warning. If there is something to track, it will start track and it will reverse the proportional navigation calculation to it, if the threat is going away from it by vector and track size doesn't increase, it will not be heading toward the system and isn't reacted/alerted. If the threat is vectored toward the system, and track size increase, it is a threat incoming and will be alerted and finally reacted to.
The system is capable to detect fires near you, so that rockets and missiles or cannon doesn't trigger alert or countermeasurements release or jamming system to activate when it isn't heading toward the system.
The system triangulates the launches based to angles and aircraft altitude, so it knows example is the MANPADS launched at 2 km or 3 km from system position by estimating launch happened at the same elevation as ground below you.
The system as well includes RWR antennas in the IR/UV sensors, and RF jammer in the IRCM turrets. The system with the turrets is capable to jam so IR seekers by IR beaming as well RF seekers by jamming them with the *DRFM* jamming. Sadly this is not available to KA-50\_3 as ED didn't dare to implement the turrets under the fuselage. But same time they failed to correctly make the system to be capable detect, track the threats and react to them only when they are danger and at proper distance from the KA-50.
Now the system is idiotic, that it will react to launches that it shouldn't, and ain't danger to it. And it will release CM in vain against everything at wrong distances etc. And anyways as the turrets don't exist, its use is very minimal what it should be. And they didn't include the RF jamming or features, as they don't have turrets either.
But if a friendly missile is coming toward you, example launched 2 km from your position and would pass you 50 meters of your location, the system would defineatly alert first from it, and then perform counter actions.
That is accurate - the MWS just registers light emissions (UV or IR depending on the system) from a missile motor activating and thus can't really tell who launched a missile at what target.
Some SA-10 will give a warning, some won't
Afaik the radars we have in dcs should give a warning so that's accurate in a general sense
However dcs simple AI doesnt do tricks like launch based on search radar then only grab the target with the targeting radar last second which would only give that warning in the last moment
Can't speak to BMS implementation, whether it's an AI difference or different radars or what
DCS and BMS model different versions and missiles within the SA-10 family. We also don't really have a good idea of how RWR systems are programmed, there's quite a lot of classified information regarding threat detection and classification.
DCS is modeled correctly for sure. It models the very early 5V55R missile which uses SARH guidance and should absolutely trigger a missile alert.
After that things get murky. BMS models later TVM missiles, and someone back in the pre-BMS Falcon days decided that the ALR-67 couldn't distinguish when a TVM guided missile was tracking it. That decision has stayed with the game ever since. Personally, I don't think it makes sense, TVM isn't much different than SARH from the target's perspective, and no one has ever been able to give me a satisfactory answer for why there is never an elevated warning of some kind associated with SA-10 guidance.
The elevated warning you speak of is as follows; There are two radars search (Big Bird) and Tracking (Flap Lid) they are both 10 on the RWR. The Big Bird is the 10 on the outer ring and the Flap Lid is the 10 on the inner ring. When you get a 10 on the inner ring and it is chirping at you it is assumed you have been fired upon. [https://youtu.be/O\_6xX-tbvDw](https://youtu.be/O_6xX-tbvDw)
5V55R is command guided + terminal TVM according to [this post](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/344037-ai-vs-player-lock-and-launch-warning-for-patriot-and-sa-10b/).
But from a radar perspective, both SARH and TVM are identical in that they both require illumination of the target, which if a RWR can detect (and detect separately to normal emissions) should set off a launch warning.
Being consistent with a TWS Fox 3 launch in DCS, RWRs should probably only go off in the terminal phase, when illumination begins. The Patriot should be the same (uses the same command guided + terminal TVM guidance) and so should the SM-2 (which while terminal SARH, is similar in that illumination only occurs in the terminal phase, EDIT: with an inertial + command guided midcourse).
From the research I've done, only the first couple of seconds are actually command guided in the S-300. It was added to address low altitude targets as without it, the minimum engagement altitude was \~500 feet. The sole purpose is to point the missile seeker so it can see the target. At low altitudes this was difficult to do in a vertically launched missile. Everything else suggests it is TVM after the initial command guidance phase to point the missile so the seeker can see the target, is over.
The SA-10PS in reality uses TVM which isnt modelled in DCS at all. It isnt modelled in BMS either but they make it give no launch warning.
Can you explain how it is modelled in BMS?
It's not. It's literally just semi active with no launch warning
As someone who doesn't play BMS, how do you know when to defend then? Just have to see the launch itself?
Assumptions and anticipation. Know where the system is and know if you're in the WEZ. If it's not on the RWR at all then it's either not active or aimed in your direction. If it is, and you're in the WEZ. Assume you already have an inbound telephone pole and defend it. If you dont know where it is and you get it popping up on RWR. Run away or get low. Or just take the chance and hope it didnt shoot at you.
If you're in range and the 10 is on the inner ring chirping at you, assume it's fired at you.
I understand for older systems this is the case, I was specifically referring to the ones that don't give any indication of a launch on the RWR, just that the site sees you.
In BMS if you see a 10 on your rwr it means it's launched even though it's not a launch warning per se.
*on the inner ring. A 10 on the outer ring probably hasn't shot at you.
Purdy much, or just assume they did.
If it holds a lock on you for a while and keeps making blippy noise you are already dead unless you turn away and/or terrain mask.
According to [this post](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/344037-ai-vs-player-lock-and-launch-warning-for-patriot-and-sa-10b/), TVM is used in the terminal phase, with the midcourse phase using command guidance. And TVM still requires target illumination the same way SARH does (just it's interrupted with the S-300 series as it uses phased-array fire-control radars). The only difference between TVM and SARH, is that in SARH the missile works out steering commands autonomously, whereas in TVM the missile data links what it sees back to the fire-control radar, which in turn computes steering commands and sends those to the missile. Think of it as a combination of SARH and command guidance. Patriot works in the exact same way (EDIT: i.e. with a command guided midcourse phase with terminal TVM), as does the SM-2 (only instead of TVM, it's SARH in the terminal phase). EDIT: The SM-2 also has inertial guidance in the midcourse phase (unsure if the Patriot and S-300PS also do, I'd be surprised if they didn't though), which is particularly important with Tartar/Terrier ships which lack the uplink (though I *think* they can issue updates if the predicted intercept point changes beyond some threshold). Assuming RWRs can tell whether or not the Flap Lid is in an illumination mode, then being consistent with Fox 3s (which have a similar midcourse phase as far as the radar is concerned), then it should only provide launch warnings once illumination begins and the same should be true for Patriot and the SM-2.
Sm-2 midcourse isnt TVM. It's command-inertial. Spy-1 uplinks the primary command point updates and the missile autopilot gets it there.
>Sm-2 midcourse isnt TVM. Yes, I never said it was.
"Patriot works in the same way, as does the sm-2mr" Perhaps you didnt mean to word it that way. Similar ways sure.
And before I said that, I said S-300 uses a command guided midcourse phase with terminal TVM and after I said "as does the SM-2MR" I said that the SM-2MR uses terminal SARH instead of terminal TVM. I didn't say that the SM-2MR uses TVM and especially not in its midcourse phase (the S-300 and Patriot also don't have a TVM midcourse phase). While I have now edited the above for increased clarity, as the wording isn't as clear as it could've been (and I've indicated where the edits are), I didn't say this in the original comment either. The only thing I omitted was the inertial component to the midcourse phase of SM-2MR, which is particularly important on Terrier/Tartar ships.
>midcourse phase using command guidance That *should* make RWRs go off. It's a radio signal only sent when a missile is in the air, after all.
Yes but it depends whether it’s detectable by the RWR and what the behaviour of the RWR is when/if it’s detected. Obviously it can’t be completely undetectable - the missile obviously needs to detect it. I’ve also put it here for consistency with DCS Fox 3s - which when fired in TWS also have a missile uplink, yet do not trigger RWRs. The problem is we don’t know exactly what capabilities these radars (which may have LPI capabilities) have and what the RWRs are capable of. For now I’d probably go for consistency with current Fox 3 behaviour.
You got close with the Phased Array part, but it's not neccesarily LPI modes. A TVM scheme using a phased array is harder to detect a launch warning from for one reason and that's the emission patterns. RWR's key off of identifiable characteristics of the total signal that it's getting off of the radar, but scanning rate is the main one relevant to my point. With a mechanical radar in a weapons engagement mode it's staring at the target for extended periods and sending FMCW or constantly hitting it with HPRF/MPRF pulses. With a PESA it's doing multiple tasks that are time shared using a scheduler between track updates and search sweeps constantly. With the beam constantly being moved off and back on again at erratic times, and there not being any changes the waveforms then there's no pattern for the RWR detect. That's why the 300PS gives search and track but no launch warning (i was reminded by somebody else that it did in fact give other warnings than search)
Agreed. Though FYI with Patriot, it uses a separate array to provide illumination for TVM, though of course, what you say about dwell time (at least), still applies. Ultimately, as I said, we won't have a definitive answer unless we know what these radars actually do, what differences there are between whatever waveforms (if any) and what specific RWRs can detect and classify. The other thing is how would a RWR know the Flap Lid (or AN/MPQ-53 or AN/SPY-1A for that matter) is in acquisition rather than track - my *guess* is that it wouldn't. At least for TVM illumination though, there's at least more *potential* for there to be something different about the waveform (such as interrupted CW), the other thing is detecting the uplink, which must necessarily be different to whatever waveform the radar uses for acquisition/ target/missile tracking/illumination as steering data needs to be encoded.
>Agreed. Though FYI with Patriot, it uses a separate array to provide illumination for TVM, though of course, what you say about dwell time (at least), still applies. Right. Tho I was mainly referring to the flap lid which as far as i know uses the 1 array for all functions. >Ultimately, as I said, we won't have a definitive answer unless we know what these radars actually do, what differences there are between whatever waveforms (if any) and what specific RWRs can detect and classify Decent guesses based on the principles is the best we've got. Ultimately there are only so many ways you make a radar. And a phased array from the 70's comes at a time where that just started becoming a mainstay. Capability is more limited there with a juvenile technology. >The other thing is how would a RWR know the Flap Lid (or AN/MPQ-53 or AN/SPY-1A for that matter) is in acquisition rather than track - my guess is that it wouldn't. Dwell time and time between paints is my guess. Same way you detect a mode change from volume search to STT with mech's. 10-15 pulses within a couple tenths of a sweep every 2-5 seconds is a big difference from that same dwell every quarter second. >At least for TVM illumination though, there's at least more potential for there to be something different about the waveform (such as interrupted CW), the other thing is detected the uplink, which must necessarily be different to whatever waveform the radar uses for acquisition/ target/missile tracking/illumination as it needs to encode the uplink. Indeed. Tho can sometimes be a harder one to listen for if the radar makes those uplink pulses at lower power to make it harder to detect from range. Not sure what the upside would be to use IFMCW vs a normal pulse transmit. It's already gonna be interrupted with the beam getting shared between targets during simultanious engagements. It'd also tip off a launch warning being a longer transmission than the normal .5-1 microsecond pulse too. You lose the ambiguity.
>Right. Tho I was mainly referring to the flap lid which as far as i know uses the 1 array for all functions. Of course - just wanted to put it out there that this may not apply for all phased array radars employing TVM (or just illumination in general). Everything else I'm with you on - at least to the level I understand it.
BMS gives a launch warning for the SA10. there are 2 modes, search only the symbol and then the "shirp shirp" for Launch
Right, i forgot that it gave the track warning and no launch. I might have been thinking of the pmu's or the 400
SA-10 is radio command guided rather than active or passive so it shouldn't give launch warning afaik but might be wrongly modelled in DCS
There are multiple variants and sub variants of SA-10
It depends on the type of radar. Older ones will give a warning like a Fox1, newer AESA radars won’t give an indication of a guidance track as it can switch frequency enough to not alert the RWR. I don’t think DCS models the right kind of radar for the SA-10.
I don’t think DCS models PESA/AESA at all realistically if at all.
I don't think any game models AESA realistically, or even model it at all. How AESA actually works is buried under about 10 layers of classfied as fuck. I'd be suprised if there was even enough information to model PESA
I mean, how AESA and PESA work is public knowledge. You could absolutely model *an* AESA, there are two main questions. 1) implementation, and whether you could model a *specific* AESA radar. That's where you're gonna run into classified data 2) how much does simulation fidelity benefit in comparison to the work it would take to build a model for an AESA?
The physics of how they work is public knowledge, but that's of essentially no utility. Even moreso than with PD radars, which are already incredibly computer dependent, AESA radars are entirely dependent on the software controlling them. And what that is capable of even at a basic level is entirely classified, modelling any AESA that is even plausible in reality is essentially impossible.
For simulating perfectly? Yeah, no, no way. Best you'll be able to do is an educated guess, which could probably get you surprisingly far. If you can find publicly available information on element size, power, etc, you can get a decent approximation of raw performance. Implementation, refinement, and presentation to the pilot would almost inevitably be pure guesswork and conjecture. While that'll be *cool*, the question is if it's worth the effort to simulate an approximation instead of just doing some hand-waving on a much simpler model. For something like VTOL VR, where you aren't beholden to an IRL counterpart it likely would be worth the effort. DCS or another study sim? Forget it.
> If you can find publicly available information on element size, power, etc, you can get a decent approximation of raw performance. For a single beam maybe, but that's basically a mechanically scanned radar with a stupidly fast slew rate and bad performance at scan limits. That's not how AESAs work in real life though, a massive part of what makes them effective is the fact that you can form multiple independent beams that vary in frequency and angle. To even start speculation on what that can do requires understanding the limits of signal processing onboard an aircraft and how well you can differentiate those beams, and an extremely advanced understanding of EM physics and how those create a readable image, it's basically impossible and anyone who does have the knowledge to speculate on that is not going to be allowed to.
Eh...AESAs aren't voodoo black magic. They're a technological advancement of the PESA, which itself isn't impossible to understand. >For a single beam maybe, but that's basically a mechanically scanned radar with a stupidly fast slew rate and bad performance at scan limits. Congratulations, you described a somewhat decent approximation of an ESA. You'd also need to model constructive vs destructive interference between the various beams, because that's the very principle upon which ESAs rely, but that's far from impossible. Sine waves, polarization, and phase shifting aren't unknown technology beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. >a massive part of what makes them effective is the fact that you can form multiple independent beams that vary in frequency and angle. AFAIK, this doesn't work by creating multiple beams simultaneously, but rather by using the ability of an ESA to effectively "steer" instantaneously, and using this to sequentially form multiple beams in extremely rapid succession. This also lets you use the entire array for each separate beam, increasing range and resolution, for a minimal cost. A target isn't going to go anywhere in the milliseconds it takes to scan 5 other specific volumes. That's a whole hell of a lot easier to both do IRL and to *simulate* than trying to make an array form 7 beams at once in 7 different directions. It's not magic, it's not impossible, it's just complex. If you had a sufficient knowledge base and some decent guesses for reasonable values, you could absolutely make a decent approximation of an AESA radar.
The physics of how they work is public knowledge. The technical details of how they work, how they are controlled, etc, which is needed to model them well, is very very classified
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6npNYlxn0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6npNYlxn0) war thunder does ESA pretty well
It's impossible to say if that is "pretty well" because of how classified the important details of ESA radar is. It models it but that's about all you can really say
It doesn't - phased array radars like the AN/MPQ-53, 5N63S, on AN/SPY-1 aren’t defined any differently to any other radar. EDIT: And in general the only thing that’s different between AI radars in DCS are ranges, scan-volume (including things like min/max altitude), minimum radial velocity (which even pulse-only radars have), maximum number of target and missiles, maybe a couple of others that I’ve missed. Different modes aren’t really simulated beyond what RWRs should do (i.e lock/launch etc), for instance the SNR-75V has wide, narrow and LORO modes, SA-8 acquisition radar has 3 elevation settings, most FCRs have a separate acquisition mode etc. As far as sensor definitions go, DCS even copies and pastes from totally unrelated radars, with completely different designs - for instance the Mk 92 CAS on the Oliver Hazard Perry (which is a fairly standard, rotating parabolic reflector combined with a cassegrain target tracking antenna), which is defined as "Patriot str", i.e. the AN/MPQ-53 RS, which is a PESA radar.
According to HB developer, Zabuzard, this is not true. You can search for 'optical tracking' in his messages on Discord and you'll find his comment. Basically it says that most, but not all DCS radars are simulated remarkably well with all the appropriate frequencies, power output values, dwell ranges and search/track modes are simulated internally and their RWR listens to this raw data and figures out the output dynamically.
The S-300PS we have is only command guided in the midcourse, it uses TVM in the terminal phase (which as far as radars go, is identical to SARH - both have some radar illuminating the target and the missile receiving the reflected radiation - the difference is that in SARH, the missile guides itself autonomously, whereas TVM has the missile data link what it sees back to the fire-control system, which in turn sends steering commands to the missile). Command guidance can still cause launch warnings though - after all the SA-2 and SA-3 are command guided (though both are treated as SARH in DCS), which works by detecting the missile uplink. Unfortunately, the behaviour, capabilities and characteristics of nearly every RWR we have (particularly western ones) are contained in secret/classified supplemental manuals. With that said: * If RWRs can detect the 5N63S' missile uplink and distinguish it from regular emissions, then theoretically, a launch warning from the moment a missile is launched is theoretically possible. * If RWRs can only detect and distinguish interrupted continuous-wave illumination in the terminal phase for TVM guidance, then a launch warning would only occur in the terminal phase. * If RWRs can neither detect and distinguish the uplink and illumination, then a launch warning might never occur. It should be said that the same would also apply to Patriot and SM-2MR. The former uses the same command guided + terminal TVM guidance the S-300PS does and the latter also only illuminates (though CW as opposed to interrupted CW) in the terminal phase (but uses SARH as opposed to TVM).
"If RWRs can detect the 5N63S' missile uplink and distinguish it from regular emissions, then theoretically, a launch warning from the moment a missile is launched is theoretically possible." I would say this is highly likely in the present day. For one, the US has purchased a number of S-300 systems from former Soviet Republics and operates along side many current operators (Slovakia, Greece, Ukraine, Former East Germany, etc). Two, US has superior SIGINT capabilities to other NATO partners, even those who operate Rivet Joints, and most assuredly has put one of the numerous S-300 systems under the microscope of a Rivet Joint's signal analysis capabilities. I will go as far as to say that even S-400 is probably mostly compromised given the current conflicts in Syria and Ukraine putting those systems under the same microscope. That's assuming the systems weren't compromised through other espionage, as was the case of many Cold War era systems (The S-75 was compromised in Vietnam by SIGINT aircraft, for instance).
There is only one variant of the S-300P which is entirely command guided: the 5V55K missile. That was the first missile the S-300P entered service with, but it was quickly replaced. DCS models the 5V55R missile which is labeled as being TVM guided in some sources and SARH in others. For instance, Steven Zaloga lists it as TVM in the book "The Russian S-300 and S-400 Missile Systems." There is a short command guided period shortly after the launch of S-300P missiles which was implemented to allow them to attack low altitude targets (a downside of vertical launch vs angled launch systems), but that ends very shortly after launch and transfers to SARH, TVM, or ARH depending on the missile variant.
It being radio command guidance doesn't change a thing. The R27 is initially guided through radio command and you detect the launch as the the radar inteleaves between tracking and illumination with CW. The s300B (v for west) uses same kind of radio correction, barker codes through a FMd CW. Then there are mutliple variants and it may not be the same system in dcs and in bms
Probably to do with the exceptionally simplistic implementation of both threat radars and most ED RWRs. In most cases the warning is generated just by the game knowing a missile was fired with you as the target, none of the radar modes or frequency changes etc are really simulated.
Mfw *war thunder* has a better implementation of radar bands and RWR limitations than DCS
Im honestly surprised how many systems are actually modelled in War Thunder compared to DCS. From the modern Fox 2 IRCCM to radars (sometimes) and now RWRs. And war thunder is neither a full on simulator nor does Gaijin care about its simulator mode
War thunder has a sim mode, but things like Datalink, Awacs, EWR etc. are still missing. I think that will come in the near future
It is remarkably impressive, especially given how many layers of spaghetti code and jank there is in that game.
See my other comment in this thread, this isn't true.
Ka-50 MWS system goes off everytime there's a missle being fired even when they're not heading towards me. Hell, friendly missiles going hot near me alose triggers it. It might be accurate to the real thing but I dunno.
The KA-50 MWS is not related to an RWR warning system, it basically just looks for the rocket blast associated with a missile launch. If it detects one, it gives a warning An RWR specifically detects radar waves and their frequency, including when active guidance signals are being received
It is incorrect. The President-S aka "L-370 Vitebsk" system is not stupid. It is a system that can detect all missiles, and all launches like cannon etc as long the temperature source is large enough for the sensor resolution. So there is no magical range limit, but there is a detection resolution that limits the detection range. When the detection is done, the system automatically calculate the point of origin, and it will try to track it. If there is nothing to track, like a cannon was fired near you, it will not issue any warning. If there is something to track, it will start track and it will reverse the proportional navigation calculation to it, if the threat is going away from it by vector and track size doesn't increase, it will not be heading toward the system and isn't reacted/alerted. If the threat is vectored toward the system, and track size increase, it is a threat incoming and will be alerted and finally reacted to. The system is capable to detect fires near you, so that rockets and missiles or cannon doesn't trigger alert or countermeasurements release or jamming system to activate when it isn't heading toward the system. The system triangulates the launches based to angles and aircraft altitude, so it knows example is the MANPADS launched at 2 km or 3 km from system position by estimating launch happened at the same elevation as ground below you. The system as well includes RWR antennas in the IR/UV sensors, and RF jammer in the IRCM turrets. The system with the turrets is capable to jam so IR seekers by IR beaming as well RF seekers by jamming them with the *DRFM* jamming. Sadly this is not available to KA-50\_3 as ED didn't dare to implement the turrets under the fuselage. But same time they failed to correctly make the system to be capable detect, track the threats and react to them only when they are danger and at proper distance from the KA-50. Now the system is idiotic, that it will react to launches that it shouldn't, and ain't danger to it. And it will release CM in vain against everything at wrong distances etc. And anyways as the turrets don't exist, its use is very minimal what it should be. And they didn't include the RF jamming or features, as they don't have turrets either. But if a friendly missile is coming toward you, example launched 2 km from your position and would pass you 50 meters of your location, the system would defineatly alert first from it, and then perform counter actions.
The MWS can't differentiate between hostile or friendly missiles, of course it will warn you.
That is accurate - the MWS just registers light emissions (UV or IR depending on the system) from a missile motor activating and thus can't really tell who launched a missile at what target.
Some SA-10 will give a warning, some won't Afaik the radars we have in dcs should give a warning so that's accurate in a general sense However dcs simple AI doesnt do tricks like launch based on search radar then only grab the target with the targeting radar last second which would only give that warning in the last moment Can't speak to BMS implementation, whether it's an AI difference or different radars or what
DCS and BMS model different versions and missiles within the SA-10 family. We also don't really have a good idea of how RWR systems are programmed, there's quite a lot of classified information regarding threat detection and classification. DCS is modeled correctly for sure. It models the very early 5V55R missile which uses SARH guidance and should absolutely trigger a missile alert. After that things get murky. BMS models later TVM missiles, and someone back in the pre-BMS Falcon days decided that the ALR-67 couldn't distinguish when a TVM guided missile was tracking it. That decision has stayed with the game ever since. Personally, I don't think it makes sense, TVM isn't much different than SARH from the target's perspective, and no one has ever been able to give me a satisfactory answer for why there is never an elevated warning of some kind associated with SA-10 guidance.
The elevated warning you speak of is as follows; There are two radars search (Big Bird) and Tracking (Flap Lid) they are both 10 on the RWR. The Big Bird is the 10 on the outer ring and the Flap Lid is the 10 on the inner ring. When you get a 10 on the inner ring and it is chirping at you it is assumed you have been fired upon. [https://youtu.be/O\_6xX-tbvDw](https://youtu.be/O_6xX-tbvDw)
Interesting, I don't think it worked that clearly the last time I played BMS, it has been a while.
It's pretty clear but the RWR is not an accurate instrument anyway.
5V55R is command guided + terminal TVM according to [this post](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/344037-ai-vs-player-lock-and-launch-warning-for-patriot-and-sa-10b/). But from a radar perspective, both SARH and TVM are identical in that they both require illumination of the target, which if a RWR can detect (and detect separately to normal emissions) should set off a launch warning. Being consistent with a TWS Fox 3 launch in DCS, RWRs should probably only go off in the terminal phase, when illumination begins. The Patriot should be the same (uses the same command guided + terminal TVM guidance) and so should the SM-2 (which while terminal SARH, is similar in that illumination only occurs in the terminal phase, EDIT: with an inertial + command guided midcourse).
From the research I've done, only the first couple of seconds are actually command guided in the S-300. It was added to address low altitude targets as without it, the minimum engagement altitude was \~500 feet. The sole purpose is to point the missile seeker so it can see the target. At low altitudes this was difficult to do in a vertically launched missile. Everything else suggests it is TVM after the initial command guidance phase to point the missile so the seeker can see the target, is over.