The radar seems to be… trying to do something? it’s listed as “TWS+” now on devserver and weirdly drifts off the target unless it’s constantly updated (much much worse than live)
1 Like
Make sure you submit a report on that behaviour
It seems to be updating the same way rafale does, but slower (as it should) and… wrong? I’m not quite sure i have the resources to do bug reports rn but i’ll see what I can do
They took the 20 km range for 1 m² targets or what does “rcs: 1.0” mean? 20 km should be the range for targets with an RCS of 0,1 m².
What exactly does “signalHoldTime” mean? The time the target has to be detected before it rings the alarm? That would be deadly if the missile was shot at you from a really short range.
I imagine signalHoldTime is the time from losing track which it will hold the signal, so if it detects a missile it will warn you instantly, but if it loses it the warning stays for 3 seconds.
Also, after doing a bit of further looking, eurofighter, gripen, tornado and similar modern aircraft have “TWS+” while jets like mig29 have “TWS”. There must be a difference, but anyone know what it is?
Wait we now have PD MAWS?
2 Likes
That indeed makes much more sense :D
New radar controls as well. This is an awesome update for behind the scenes stuff
Important thing to know is how big of a RCS missiles have in WT, i can’t find specific values for them. With the 20km range for 1m RCS the Eurofighter MAWS should have a 11km detection range for AAM and 7km for manpads.
Not bad but still kinda meh, if in the future a Rafale sends a MICA IR or an EF sends a ASRAAM at you you’ll have 10 seconds to react.
That’s amazing…most advanced mech Radar in the world cant see a slowly turning MiG 15…
The estimated range of the AMIDS-MAW, judged by antenna sizes and most likely used frequency (94 GHz), is 20 km for 0,1 m² not 1 m² (11 km for 0,01 m² MANPADS). So it’s either an error or they didn’t want to make the MAW as good as it’s said to be.
Different question:
Is the “elevationWidth” of 90° (±45°) correct? Couldn’t find anything about that ad-hoc, but to my knowledge most AESA radars (the AMIDS-MAW of the EF is AESA) have an electronical beam steering width of ±60°. The antennas already cover ±60° in azimuth (otherwise you couldn’t reach a 360° coverage with just three antennas around the plane in the horizontal plane) so it doesn’t make sense to me why they are limited to ±45° in elevation while having ±60° in azimuth.
Idk but the AMIDS is said to have blind spots, about AMIDS trackers:
“They automatically locate and follow tracks, offering almost total protection, with the exception of a narrow cone in the upper/lower sectors”
What are the new controls?
Yeah that’s correct. Currently 360° azimuth coverage and 180° elevation. So a 90° blindspot above and below the plane (which I wouldn’t exactly call a “narrow cone”). But as the antennas have ±60° azimuth, I don’t quite understand why they should only have ±45° elevation coverage. Changing elevation to ±60° too would reduce the blindspots above and below to 60° instead of 90°.
2 Likes
These
Quick ad hoc MWS test against radar and IR threats.
Threat 1: R-77-1, launch 82km, detected by RWR and not by MWS. evaded at ~4km
Threat 2: R-73, launch 6km, not detected. evaded at ~3.5km
Threat 3: R-73, launch 4km, detected by MWS at 3.5km, evaded at 2.5km
Threat 4: R-77-1, launch 4.5km, detected by RWR, and by MWS at 3.5km. Not evaded.
It is HUGELY underperforming by the looks of things. 3.5km is also a seriously concerning value, as this is not nearly enough time to evade any AAM. SAMs (e.g ADATS in test drive) seem to be detected at a more reasonable distance (7-8km?) but still far too low.
In dogfight tests against Su-30SM I also had erroneous warnings while the enemy was flaring… which doesn’t quite line up with the “Radar MAW”. Confirmed that they were not using any chaff for the entire engagement.
Anything on radar fix?
They’ve done… something? It doesn’t seem to have changed much though and may be worse in places for now. I’ve also taken a quick look at the datamines and there seems to be a GTM section, a surfacesearch section and a surfacetrack section so it seems we might be getting something.
Scan pattern got fixed
Now its:
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
Before it was
1,2,3,4
4,3,2,1
1,2,3,4
5 Likes