Number of the capabilities missiles should have from the player’s point of view is only limited by the player fantasy. Common sense gives answer “no” about terrain avoidance, NCTR and others like this.
In the game for fighters with multi-target attack capabilities (right now these are fighters with ARH missiles with datalink) missiles no more receive target position via datalink after target track lose, even if the target track is re-established. So there is no way to switch from “IOG+DL” to “IOG” and than back to “IOG+DL”.
This works in this way because there is ambiguity: multiple missiles in flight, target of some of them is lost by the radar (no datalink support, they switched to IOG), new target is acquired in TWS or STT mode - which missiles should be connected to this new target?
For example:
F-14 launched two AIM-54 on two targets at range of 70 km in TWS mode - both missiles are in “IOG+DL” mode. 10 secs later new enemy suddenly appeared on a distance of 10 km in the front. Player locked this new enemy on and launched AIM-7F in STT mode. Which behavior of these two AIM-54 is expected? Should they be connected to this new target by datalink or should they continue their two to these far targets in “IOG” mode?
The only way to make it work in the way players want - to provide manual re-targeting (re-connecting missile datalink to another target tracked by the radar) in flight for each launched missile. Which looks like too complex and not easy to use.
7 Likes
They should continue to the far targets in IOG mode since they are going for their assigned targets. Clustered target assignment capability.
Currently it seems that missiles only continue manuevering in IOG for a few seconds after target track has been lost. Is this considered a bug? For instance, launching at a target in front of you during a merge, the missile does not do a 180 degree manuever in IOG to follow the target.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fVxq4GpLjbPO
Terrain avoidance is already used in some missiles such as cruise missiles rather commonly, not sure how its a farfetched idea a radar missile would have said ability as well
it is far fetched. cruise missiles have dedicated radar altimeters. the radar on an air to air missile would be looking somewhere completely different. in your example image, the seeker would be looking at the target and not the ground.
It has always surprised me that they did not simply install an IR and RF seeker in the same missile. They even had prototypes of such a thing but made it hilariously ugly. They could literally make two cones on the front if they really wanted to - it would not be the most aerodynamic solution but I’d imagine that the pK would be insane.
Fair enough, i did some more digging into it, I had mistakenly assumed the main radar of an aircraft could/was used for radar altitude as well, and as such theoretically the radar seeker could do so as well in theory, but aircrafts also have dedicated radar altimeters it seems.
Also, the drawing was a poor representation, but the general thought was “if the radar seeker starts to pickup a significant amount of clutter in its sidelobes, with the estimated intercept point being in said clutter, a more LOS intercept path would be attempted” Hence the “limited terrain avoidance capability” and not outright “radar altitude”
m scan and pesa radars can only do one thing at a time so you have to choose…
some systems do track or at least know about the ground. an example of this would be the mim-104 patriot. it knows where the ground is or tracked it before to not waste precious radar power on those areas but also to avoid having the interceptor follow or lead a target into the ground. however it can only do this because it tracks where the interceptor is…
SM-2 has received an IR seeker on the block IIIB but it is supposedly dropped on the IIIC
i guess they decided that it is not necessary
the IR seeker on the sm-2 was installed for BMD
i’d say the US is very confident in the radar seeker tech
Why are missiles able to lock the wrong target stepan? Atleast for amraam’s case it should check the datlink info is the same as the target it has tracked and only reject datalink when it has confirmed the correct target is locked.
It’s probably a combination of battery life, drag, size limitations, and just general effectiveness. Why waste money trying to come up with ways to solve the first three when just creating a better RF or IR seeker already gives you a solution for the last problem.
Look at how IIR systems and AESA seekers pretty much mean it’s not those points that are going to cause failures.
Forcing an enemy to evade you kinematically whilst also utilizing two forms of countermeasures is quite an effective upgrade. Even the current modern missiles have a pK only in the ~90% within the MAR. Bringing that up to 99 or 100% is the difference between wasting 1 or 2 missiles per target in a closer range engagement and that’s huge.
Not really when you consider the odds of engaging more than 2 targets in a single flight.
It might make more of a comeback as a way to deal with stealth threats, but not until individual seeker performance falls below a point that solving the first 3 problems becomes easier/cheaper.
It never went away, they’ve been trying to solve how to implement dual seekers in missiles for a while. I do not know what the hang up is, but I suspect it has something to do with maintenance or reliability more than anything else. Cost has been a non-factor for America for quite some time.
Thank you for the response and confirmation. So indeed ARH missiles currently will lose DL capabilities after TRK.
I find this interesting as once we see AESA fighters, they won’t have much advantage with ARH (outside of other QoL benefits to AESA). The missile’s own radar will override the launching aircraft’s DL information and go into TRK even when the launching aircraft has a perfect lock the whole way through.
I sure hope not, using combined TRK and DL is one of the main features the AAM-4/4B with J/ARG-1 have to offer, it would be a shame to not represent it in game at some point.
Though I wouldn’t mind them holding back on the implementation just a bit longer so they can finally add the F-2…
1 Like
It’s just natural at this point. After all, they added AAM-3 without BTT and dual channel seeker so, it’s just to be expected for balance.
But yes, if it helps add the F-2 earlier, I’m all for it.
1 Like
Small correction, PESA radars can do two things at a time such as you mentioned simultaneous terrain following/avoidance and air to air functions.
From Rafale’s PESA:
Spoiler
no.
this is a technicality thing. PESA has one Tx and/or RX module thus it can only do one thing at a time. HOWEVER, the speed at which it can switch between a2a/a2g is much much higher which is what that picture you posted states.
“fast radar mode switches”
it’s not technically simulatneously but functionally simultaneously.
AESA on the other hand can have different sections of the radar produce their own radar waves so you can actually have the top half do air to air and the bottom half air to ground for example. this is what’s required for “true” simultaneous operations.
PESAs can just be made fast enough so that there’s no significant negative impact on performance.
4 Likes
I sometimes wonder if more hybrid designs were ever suggested, such as the use of a dual pulse rocket with a ramjet as a sustainer. This could be rather interesting.