Unabbreviate TCS for me please.
Second, modeling TCS may require game changes and that takes time.
Perhaps that discussion can be carried over to the F-14 thread, at this point it has little relevance to the AMRAAM.
Television Camera System aka. the AN/AXX-1, its basically the same systems as the ASX-1 TISEO found on the Israeli F-4E. It replaced the AN/ALR-23 Infra-Red Search and Track System that earlier F-14’s had, and was replaced by later the AN/AAS-42 IRST which was an IIR system
It’s already in game and currently acts like a Targeting pod instead of an IRST (e.g. the AN/AAS-15 found on the F-8E, though it’s an Electro Optical system, not IR) for some reason it should work in concert to make the AWG-9 able to hold tracks through notches and ignore Chaff completely.
At the moment it gets in the way constantly and causes massive issues with TWS and sorting tracks as it can be difficult to manages as an additional system.
1 Like
You have no idea what you are talking about
The reciprocal of PRF (or PRR) is called the Pulse Repetition Time (PRT), Pulse Repetition Interval (PRI), or Inter-Pulse Period (IPP), which is the elapsed time from the beginning of one pulse to the beginning of the next pulse. Within radar technology PRF is important since it determines the maximum target range (R max) and maximum Doppler velocity (V max) that can be accurately determined by the radar. Conversely, a high PRR/PRF can enhance target discrimination of nearer objects such as a periscope or fast moving missile leading to practices of employing low PRRs for search radar, and very high PRFs for fire control radars,
Did you read that? Can you comprehend it?
A radar system determines range through the time delay between pulse transmission and reception. For accurate range determination, especially over great distances a pulse must be transmitted and reflected before the next pulse is trnsmitted. Low PRF is for range detection.
a
Don’t ever disrespect me by coming at me with this preschool, daddy day care logic.
Is that how you think radio waves work?
Do you know what CW is? Do you know what ICW is? They are both of frequencies above 30 kHz They are HPRF, One is continuous.
Continuous wave has **no minimum or maximum range, although the broadcast power level imposes a practical limit on range. The AWG9 should have the furthest range of all fighters when it locks a target at all aspects with the strongest field strength/broadcasting power Continuous-wave radar maximize total power on a target because the transmitter is broadcasting continuously. or pulsing repetitions so fast it’s called HPRF aka Interrupted Continuous Wave.
The drawback of Systems using PRF above 30 kHz (High PRF) is that it becomes increasingly difficult to take multiple samples (radar return) between transmit pulses at these pulse frequencies, so range measurements are limited to short distances longer range targeting requires radars capable of emitting a combination differing PRF simultaneously to target at long ranges and having the digital processing power to interpret that and guide the missile.
I know this, I said it.
You just contradicted yourself.
Also what is the reason? What is the reason the AMRAAM will go in the Med PRF in terminal. The RF at which it takes on all the disadvantages of both Low PRF radars and High PRF radars? Interesting.
When HPRF undeniably proven. CW is the best for targeting, period. that is because the signal for a radar missile in unbroken & continuous. and direct velocity can be measured up to 4.5 km/s
Then he proceeds to contradict himself and ultimately agree with me.
Brilliant.
2 Likes
It’s not necessary to complain about “daddy daycare logic” and then proceed to do the exact same thing back. This conversation COULD have been a lot more productive had you not gone and put that in there.
You said “CW is the best for targeting, period”… to which I ask why did they go away with continuous wave illumination for SARH missiles? iirc the F/A-18 dropped the CW illumination device solely in the effort of reducing maintenance costs on the radar by simplifying the hardware portion as much as possible and relying more heavily on advanced electronics components to pick up the slack… not because of any performance improvement.
Also, good job complaining about how he simplified his understanding of something in his own words and then shuffling around the introductory wikipedia section on PRF for everyone to read;
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1151375532441743381/image.png
1 Like
Oh let me get to your response that is littered with contradictions. It will have to wait.
My apologies, I must of missed that patch when did the F-18 come to war thunder?
Additionally, the F18s radars is not guiding the missile to impact dork.
1 Like
F-18’s radar is in the game on the Harrier 2, and it’s labeled as “F-18” when it locks people on their RWR… since that would be the most dangerous threat using that type of radar it is what comes up on the warning.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1151375989293731901/image.png
Additionally, the F/A-18’s radar was most certainly guiding the AIM-7M/P all the way to target.
We can’t force the devs to fix any particular issue, we can pass on feedback though. I’ll nudge the report this evening.
4 Likes
F18 did not drop a CW illuminator. it never had one. 4th gen radars do not need a separate CW illuminator.
They can produce high PRF pulse Dopler waveform and many other RFs to pull ambiguity if they had to.
We do not use sparrows anymore. We do not guide radar missiles all the way to impact either. Since before you were born. But guess what? To this day HPRF is always required to successfully guide radar missiles to target. There is still nothing more reliable.
Let me see your source the brevity Pitbull. Lol I know exactly where it came from.
The Pitbull brevity existed before the AMRAAM, and it’s used to refer to any radar missile going active. the term is used defensively as well. That is why the Navy and Airforce developed specific tactical brevity’s for Aim-120 when it enters the terminal and specifically states to HPRF ACTIVE RANGE.
HUSKY (Navy) Air intercept missile (AIM)-120 supported to HPRF active range
CHEAPSHOT (AF) Air intercept missile (AIM)-120 supported to HPRF active range
Pitbull is used to describe any radar missile going active its actually used defensively more. Why would Pitbull be the specific brevity for the MPRF? The worst RF to guide missiles in especially?
Medium PRF has unique radar scalloping issues that require redundant detection schemes. This phenomenon also has detrimental effect on moving target indicator systems, where the detection scheme subtracts signals received from two or more transmit pulses.
Med PRF Pulse dopler radars: this system would fail to detect reflections at 50 km and 100 km that are moving 600 km/s or 1,200 km/s.
It would also fail to detect reflections at 37.5 km and 75 km that are moving 450 km/s or 900 km/s.
Show me the source, that the AIm-120 uses the Med PRF in the terminal. Under what circumstance would the aim-120 be better off using Med PRF over the most reliable RF for targeting and fire control radars? Do the pilots make the switch in flight and yell “bit bull!” lol why?
Pitbull already means any missile going active. lol fake and made up.
Aren’t you the next senior tech moderator?
There is a difference of locking targets in 4th and 3rd gen. Because you locked someone in the F15A does not been they are being illuminated. Do you know what radar illumination is? its continuous wave.
Anyways the Aim54. there is no illumination with a TWS lock. The Aim54 does not ever need illumination of the Awg9. When it gets to the terminal phase it switches its own radar on and Pitbull’s to target. The target had no idea he was be targeted (F14 radar emissions were very difficult to detect an attack) It’s really high-tech stuff, but that WT brain.
You are incapable of seeing the technology and capability beyond the F-4. WHY? immediately refers to his WT education. “High PRF? WT taught me head on only! Head on mode! The F15 can only kill you in a head on.”
Thinks the F14 has an additional transmitter. Why would it need one? At the same time, you will say the AWG9 is a high PRF fighter… Which is it? lol does it need one or is already a high PRF radar? omg lol.
Of course, the AWG9 is a High PRF Radar. Higher than the APG-63 of the F-15.
The AW9 is a phased array CW radar. You cannot see that radars can change RFs and are dumbfounded how high PRF is used for radar missile.
The AN/AWG-9 offers multiple air-to-air modes: long-range [continuous-wave radar] velocity search, range-while-search at shorter ranges, and an airborne track-while-scan mode with the ability to track up to 24 airborne targets, display 18 of them on the cockpit displays, and launch against 6 of them at the same time.
1 Like
Thats a good thing… Because Aim-7M/P are not active homing.
yeah, scary F18s.
See you patch drop
Tornado F.3 Weapons System Manual:
The AMRAAM engineers clearly chose MPRF for a reason, so it’s probably not as terrible as you are making out.
Thinks the F14 has an additional transmitter. Why would it need one?
A 10 second google search would tell you that the F-14 does indeed have a CW Illuminator.
At the same time, you will say the AWG9 is a high PRF fighter… Which is it? lol does it need one or is already a high PRF radar? omg lol.
The F-4J’s radar is high PRF, but no one is claiming that it doesn’t use a CW illuminator. Just because a radar is high PRF doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a CW illuminator.
4 Likes
Damn I thought ~10months was enough time for you to pick a RF book and throughly read it and understand it, my bad. But I guess just copy pasting wiki paragraphs without a clue of what’s going on in a signal still does it right?
Here’s a tip, look up what the doppler bandwidth is in the f domain then why HPRF has an ambiguous range and an unambiguous velocity velocity and LPRF unambiguous range and ambiguous velocity. This( if you understand) is enough to show you that if you do doppler filtering, HPRF is better for high closure targets.
After this look up what frequency modulation is and how its used on pulsed signals. This( again, if you understand) will show you that range can be solved even when the range is greater than the max ambiguous range in a HPRF signal. Thus you can detect things at long ranges without compromising high closure targets.
I have no other choice if you don’t understand Peak power and AVG power( or even knew these 2 existed). It was the easiest way to break it down for you, and you don’t grasp the simple analogy.
Copypasting wiki again? I reiterate, read about FM and how range measurement is done with it in HPRF.
No you don’t because you keep parroting
Conversely, a high PRR/PRF can enhance target discrimination of nearer objects such as a periscope or fast moving missile leading to practices of employing low PRRs for search radar, and very high PRFs for fire control radars,
Did you read that? Can you comprehend it?
A radar system determines range through the time delay between pulse transmission and reception. For accurate range determination, especially over great distances a pulse must be transmitted and reflected before the next pulse is trnsmitted. Low PRF is for range detection.
then
If a target is on a beam aspect to the missile( or Vc is just near the missile velocity) then there’s no reason to have a huge doppler bandwidth.
For example if the seeker is on HPRF, the doppler bandwidth is 3000 m/s( ±1500 m/s) and it has 64 doppler cells, thats 47m/s each cell. And a max unambiguous range of 2km with 1 range cell. The seeker also has MPRF that has a bandwidth of 800m/s(±400 m/s )and same amount of doppler cells, thats 12.5 m/s per cell. Due to being MPRF it has an longer (as useful) maximum ambiguous range of 15km and 32 range gates, thus 468 m range cell.
Now if there’s a target(Vt=600m/s) head on to the missile(Vm=400m/s), Vc=1000 m/s, you can’t track it in MPRF as the max unambiguous velocity is 400m/s before it starts overlapping( in the frequency domain) and showing as a target thats going away. Thus you need to track it in HPRF which can track targets going ±1500 from the missiles TAS.
If the target is now near beaming the missile(Vm=400m/s), and the Vc drops to 476m/s. Lets say the MLC(“notch”) is at ±60m/s. If you continue in HPRF, with the doppler cell of 47m/s, the target will be in the second doppler cell but the MLC will be there aswell. Thus lock is lost. IF you switch to MPRF, the target will be in the 7th doppler cell and the MLC in the 4th doppler cell. Track is kept.. Chaff can be filtered better in MPRF if you think more.
On the second case, if we put the target has an altitude of 500m above the ground, the distance Target-missile is 700m, and the angle of the missile flightpath to the ground is 45°. The distance LoS ground-missile is 1407m. The target is within the HPRF range gate, but the ground clutter is on it aswell SO track is lost in the doppler and range spectrum. ON MPRF, the target is on the 2nd range cell and the ground clutter appears on the 4thrange cell. SO using HPRF we got a track in the range domain and in the doppler spectrum. Again, with chaff taking time to bloom, it can be out of the range cell. If the target effectively gets its signal in the MLC, Ex Vc=440m/s, but the geometry above is kept, track can still be done. Range and Doppler are BOTH analyzed in MPRF compared to HPRF where typically only doppler is analyzed. FM in HPRF will leave big range cells compared to MPRF.
This is why MPRF is important. IF YOU UNDERSTOOD THIS
Values are just examples. MPRF in one radar can be HPRF in another one and viceversa.
No, as stated previously. Besides simplification, the main radar has a greater gain that CW illumunators. Longer range is one imporvement, The rest were stated above.
Ironic. You don’t know the difference between a Continuous Wave and Continued Illumunation.
CW radar. You cannot see … and are dumbfounded how high PRF
This is my favorite. A CW signal has PRFs. TOP KEK
See above, the dude has always confused waveform with illumination. I still remember the AWG9 thread lmao. He also confuses carrier frequency and the PRF.
4 Likes
Cracking read, cheers. MPRF always made my brain hurt haha, this has helped.
2 Likes
I have a question for those who have played with the files more than I have and just know more about the topic:
How much does this influence the SARH illumination?
"illuminationTransmitter": {
"power": 200.0,
"antenna": {
"angleHalfSens": 10.0,
"sideLobesSensitivity": -32.0
}
From what I can tell, radars that are able to guide SARH missiles have this piece of code in the config files, and most if not all have the exact same values. Is this what I would expect it to be (parameters for the SARH illuminator)? Do these influence the code? Does "angleHalfSens actually represent the beam width of the illumination signal, and does sideLobeSensitivity actually stand for the power level of the first side lobe?
If they do, wouldn’t bringing the beam width down, at least for aircraft that lack a CW illuminator and use main radar for intermittent illumination, massively help with keeping the missile on an intended target? As an example, the N019 does not have a separate illuminator, so the beam width would be 3.5° (I don’t know how much the change in frequency, if there even is any, would affect the beam width).
Also, what is usually the beam width for CW illuminators on aircraft like the F-4E
That code was added as to all radars (that guide SARH missiles) at the exact same time as the mini RWR rework a couple of months ago (the one that made it so you got a lock warning if you were flying near someone who was locked).
So there is a non-zero chance that the code exists only to make the RWR react properly, and doesn’t actually impact missile performance (I don’t remember anyone noticing a change in missile behaviour after that code was added).
1 Like
The F-18’s radar most certainly dropped the CW illumination device early on primarily to increase MTBF of the radar… and because it offered no improvement in performance for guiding the Sparrow.
They state the “feature was eliminated” indicating that they had it originally, but deleted it for the reasons mentioned.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1151510905423659008/image.png
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA142103.pdf
It took me less than a minute to find this on google after looking up; “F-18” “Continuous wave”. It was like the second result.
1 Like
We are talking about targeting. AMRAAM does not go in Med PRF in the terminal by itself. It must go High PRF as normal radar missiles.
Please learn to carefully read and comprehend what you find on the internet before posting THIS IS ONLY IN REFERNCE TO COMMAND LINK GUIDANCE capable aircraft.
It literally says AMRAAM moding at the top. It also is not talking about the missile in going ACTIVE in the terminal. But setting up the missile before and forcing it into a Med PRF configuration and supporting it after launch…LMFAO
Its a modification in allowing in which the launching aircraft can support it with med PRF and force the AMRAAM too as well.
The AMRAAM does not do this by itself or can. YOU NEED A COMMAND LINK GUIDANCE capable launch platform to force the missile into Med PRF and must support it.
I am sure there is some advantage for COMMAND LINK GUIDANCE in forcing the AMRAAAM into Med PRF. Pretty cool but still not what they naturally do.
Good job ignoring everything else here.
Command link guidance isn’t necessary to “force the missile into MPRF”. It does this on it’s own, depending on what the target is doing. If conditions are favorable it can begin going active at further ranges and will decide to do so with HPRF in most cases, but this isn’t totally accurate… still better than tracking the data given via sidelobes from launch aircraft radar. Once it is within MPRF parameters / distances it will switch and guide towards target… who often at this time is defensive and MPRF is more favorable against this type of target.
In fact, the ranges it goes active are something selected via target size parameters prior to launch and not thereafter.
The verbiage is clear.
The radar of the launching aircraft establishes message communication with the missile and initiates the Command Link messages.
Following launch, Time to missile Med PRF is then selected and displayed.
The time to Med PRF aka TMPRF is a countdown (YOU SELECT) in which you tell the missile when turn its radar on and use medium PRF.
The pilot tells the missiles when to go active. There wouldn’t be a countdown selection and a display.
LMFAO. You have no clue what you are talking about & you can barely read.
No… TMPRF is a preselected countdown after launch that tells the missile to go active no matter what the conditions.
You can’t even articulate when a manual is speaking in regard to a special guidance technique that certain aircraft offer to the missile or when its speaking about basic, standard Aim-120 functions.
All that does is help update the missile to know when it should activate and begin searching for target. The verbiage is quite clear, and somehow you’ve misunderstood it in a couple of ways.
It states;
“For Normal and RHOJ launches the aircraft system initiates the Command Link messages automatically for the selected target.”
After which, it states;
“Following launch the MIS information for the selected target and the TMPRF (Time to Missile Medium PRF selected) are displayed. The TMPRF is the count down from launch to the point where the missile will acquire the target and the missile Radar will switch to Medium PRF mode to lock onto the target.”
As you can see, it quite clearly says it is being fired in normal or radar home on jam launches.
It clearly states “the missile radar will switch” indicating that the launch aircraft had nothing to do with this aside from letting the missile know it is “x seconds from impact” and to begin searching with it’s own radar to acquire the target. Of course, it does this in MPRF because that’s the optimal guidance mode for it in most scenarios.