ED Forums - View Single Post - [REPORTED] RWR not showing locked radars in Search mode
View Single Post
Old 08-14-2018, 08:30 PM   #77
Beamscanner's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: tatooine
Posts: 522

Originally Posted by lunaticfringe View Post
Might help if you knew how NATOPS are written. Would make your argument look ridiculous, but it would keep you from continuing to make it.

"Squadrons" don't write NATOPS; program offices do. Offices that deal directly with the manufacturers and contractors who are designing hardware to Navy specification, and specify updated requirements to those suppliers as they come to pass. The authoring is coordinated with test and acceptance crews assigned to those offices who confer with those writing the technical publications that the details are exact, with multiple sets of eyes confirming the material every step of the way.

Your belief that these documents are authored by end users is likely only predicated on the understanding that updates can be suggested from the Fleet up. Fleet-side corrections are generally through Safety Officers for operational issues- not just some LT that got told to write up the handling of a section.

Corrections, which are intended to be distributed to all commands that deal with a given type as quickly as possible, every individual in the chain- from the Captain in the respective office at NAVAIR, to the authors, the test pilots, and the fleet-side representatives who are part of the annual board review of the document, sign off. Even in the event of a safety of flight update, most of that chain is still reviewing the material- and in most instances, testing it directly, prior to sign off and release to the respective units.

As such, when you state as a matter of opinion that the end user "squadrons" who are writing these documents are wrong, you're not simply incorrect on the basis of their production, but are stating that a long series of SMEs- every one of them who has direct professional experience with the hardware, software, and the operational requirements in question for the material they're responsible for, are full of it, because of uncorroborated opinion.
1. Small communities write their own NATOPS and send them up to NAVAIR to be approved. The F-5N community is very small.

2. The NATOPS is not a good source for detailed descriptions of tactical systems like the RWR. Especially when the squadron doesn't even have an RWR.

Originally Posted by lunaticfringe View Post
Following your recent Dunning-Kruger episode over the functionality of the F/A-18C's RWR having changed at least twice over its lifetime, I wouldn't exactly suggest that is a position of strength from which to operate. There is a world of difference between knowing how the radar equation works, how received power is interpreted by an analog system for which you have documentation or a video, and how a piece of software-driven hardware- which is coded for a specific role, and an operational environment you may or may not be considering (and may ultimately be the underlying cause for argument in this specific case), works.
3. You're suggesting I'm an idiot because I came forth with documentation on a system that showed it work contrary to the DCS simulation?

4. I work with digital and analog EW systems so I understand the differences..

5. Instructor Pilots who write the NATOPS don't have the luxury of being EW experts.

Originally Posted by lunaticfringe View Post
Until you can provide later dated documentation for the software load in the F-5N versus that from the material Belsimtek worked from, you're demands are unsubstantiated. Doesn't matter how you feel on the matter- those feelings aren't supported by fact, but instead how you think the system should work as represented in this particular application of the type.

And that just isn't enough to be making demands without material support more substantial than a YouTube clip here, or an unrelated picture there.
6. Documentation on the ALR-87 istelf (besides the NATOPS) cannot be found ATM. However, I've provided much documentation on the ALR-46 which the ALR-87 is derived from. Note how the ALR-46 document is many pages long, while the NATOPS has but half a page worth of text covering the ALR-87. Also, nothing beats video evidence

At the end of the day, if you think that the NATOPS description of the ALR-87 isn't missing anything, then you'd have to believe that the ALR-87 has no lock tone (PRF based or synthetic)...

Truth is, older RWRs didn't need synthetic lock tones because older fire control radars used lower PRFs (audible frequencies, usually between 600-3000Hz) and a mechanical antenna that stared at the target when locked on..

audible tone (low PRF) + steady tone (staring antenna) = natural lock tone (unique to each radars PRF)

I'm willing to bet that the synthetic tones were added to things that system couldn't produce naturally.

1. Missile Launch - Most old school Fire Control Radars used CW illumination for guidance. CW signals produce no tone, and thus cannot be heard.

2. New Guy audio - A pilot may not recognize a new PRF tone as being much different from the others. Especially if its a duplicate emitter (ie two MIG-21s). Thus a synthetic tone informs the pilot of a new contact.

Last edited by Beamscanner; 08-14-2018 at 11:05 PM.
Beamscanner is offline   Reply With Quote