Launching Fox 1's in TWS?

So, what's the reason why Fox 1's cannot be launched at a target using TWS in real life? Doesn't TWS communicate target position updates to the missile? Wouldn't Fox 1's be able to use those updates to get a lot closer to the target before switching to STT?

This might be the wrong place to post this, but idk.

Missiles that behave as you describe and switch to STT once close to the target are Fox 3 missiles by definition. A Fox 1 missile must be launched in STT because it rides the radar signal from the launching plane all the way to target. If it loses that signal it loses guidance (excepting Flood modes). A radar in TWS mode isn't emitting a strong enough signal illuminating the target for the missile to get guidance from it, since it has to split its beam to track other contacts as well.

Missiles that behave as you describe and switch to STT once close to the target are Fox 3 missiles by definition. .

No they arent, Sorry but you might create more misunderstanding in the OP. Fox 3 dont switch to STT, they activate their onboard radar leaving the launcher free to turn cold. The STT lock requires the launcher to maintain the enemy inside radar gymbal limits.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

So, what's the reason why Fox 1's cannot be launched at a target using TWS in real life? Doesn't TWS communicate target position updates to the missile? Wouldn't Fox 1's be able to use those updates to get a lot closer to the target before switching to STT?

 

 

 

This might be the wrong place to post this, but idk.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Aren't the newer variants of the AIM-7 Sparrow using datalink instead of CW guidance?

No modem SARH uses CW.

No modern SARH AAM is guided via TWS.

No modem SARH uses CW.

No modern SARH AAM is guided via TWS.

If they're not using CW what do they use? Datalink? If so, why is it not possible to guide them by TWS untill they reach the terminal phase where the host radar could still switch to STT for more precise guidance?

They use PD illumination. We can only make educated guesses as to why TWS isn't used. The only aircraft that does this in any way is the MiG-31, and even that uses its own form of STT since it's a PESA radar - it can guide multiple SARH to several targets simultaneously, but that's only because it can switch the beam from one target to another so fast that it's like STT.

They use PD illumination. We can only make educated guesses as to why TWS isn't used. The only aircraft that does this in any way is the MiG-31, and even that uses its own form of STT since it's a PESA radar - it can guide multiple SARH to several targets simultaneously, but that's only because it can switch the beam from one target to another so fast that it's like STT.

Interesting, didn't know that about the MiG-31. But yeah, making educated guesses is what we are here for.

Missiles that behave as you describe and switch to STT once close to the target are Fox 3 missiles by definition. A Fox 1 missile must be launched in STT because it rides the radar signal from the launching plane all the way to target. If it loses that signal it loses guidance (excepting Flood modes). A radar in TWS mode isn't emitting a strong enough signal illuminating the target for the missile to get guidance from it, since it has to split its beam to track other contacts as well.

probably should have been more clear. I meant launch using tws and switch to the STT via host plane's radar, not the missile's

No AI radar does this.

Real life TWS is a far cry from games like DCS and that is the reason that most of the times one uses STT for ARH missiles as well. Once contacts are sorted, flight goes to STT as it is the only way to have highest quality tracking.

Of course the newest AESA radars can do "stt in multi target" situation, but that is beyond the scope of DCS' radar generations.

Real life TWS is a far cry from games like DCS and that is the reason that most of the times one uses STT for ARH missiles as well. Once contacts are sorted, flight goes to STT as it is the only way to have highest quality tracking.

TWS has been used to hit multiple targets with AIM-120Bs IRL, in actual combat. I don't know what you mean about 'far cry', because there are definitely important differences - but frankly all this blah-blah about STT being 'of greater quality' is, so far, from our perspective, some sort of theoretical thing that doesn't concern us. TWS has ways of dealing with all sorts of things, including target update rates.

And in any case, none of this matters for the purpose of said discussion as no one is implying TWS being used for terminal guidance.

Of course the newest AESA radars can do "stt in multi target" situation, but that is beyond the scope of DCS' radar generations.

Yep, it's called SWT (Search while track).

STT offers a greater quality track over TWS, it doesnt go against TWS being used.

Its like saying planes are faster than cars and answering, people use cars...

It isn't like that all; there's no implication hidden in this analogy, while the implication in this whole track quality thing is is that TWS is worse for guidance than STT.

Well, is it? If so, do you what are the factors involved in determining this - and feel free to skip the obvious one (track update rate) since that one's fairly easy to deal with, and it has been dealt with.

Its like saying planes are faster than cars and answering, people use cars...

I'm not quite sure what are you arguing exactly. If you want the best tracking performance against a single target, you go STT. There are many situation where update rate and resistance against countermeasure will advice going STT, e.g.2 high performance target coming at each other over mach 1.2, at that speed inside 12-15 mn, you want to not loose him since any high g maneouver will perfectly put you out of the scan zone, over any possible higher SA that TWS gives you.

F15c eagle drivers are talked to go STT when very close, as described in the shot down of a F15 against a mig29 in Kosovo.

The tracking is not better per se, since the amraam will guide the same, but many situations will call for one or the other.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

, e.g.2 high performance target coming at each other over mach 1.2, at that speed inside 12-15 mn, you want to not loose him since any high g maneouver will perfectly put you out of the scan zone, over any possible higher SA that TWS gives you.

Which manual says this?

F15c eagle drivers are talked to go STT when very close, as described in the shot down of a F15 against a mig29 in Kosovo.

And?

I'm waiting to see exactly what you're arguing about. You're not convincing me that STT will do something better.

Which manual says this?

 

 

 

And?

 

I'm waiting to see exactly what you're arguing about. You're not convincing me that STT will do something better.

Ok, not trying to convice you of anything. My only point was that STT has some clear advantages in certain scenarios, that's all.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

TWS has been used to hit multiple targets with AIM-120Bs IRL, in actual combat. I don't know what you mean about 'far cry', because there are definitely important differences - but frankly all this blah-blah about STT being 'of greater quality' is, so far, from our perspective, some sort of theoretical thing that doesn't concern us. TWS has ways of dealing with all sorts of things, including target update rates.

 

And in any case, none of this matters for the purpose of said discussion as no one is implying TWS being used for terminal guidance.

What I meant was that DCS' TWS in current form is overall too good - especially with maneuvering targets and ecm. And of course, it is then logical step that some people are wondering why not have SAHR compatible with it as it is so good. Fact is STT is used in real life more than it is usually percived in time when we have ARH & TWS...

What I meant was that DCS' TWS in current form is overall too good - especially with maneuvering targets and ecm.

Why do you believe that contemporary ECM (SPJ in particular) would even affect TWS at all? Here's a fun fact: The eagle can track multiple AOJ strobes in TWS without any problems. You can't do that in DCS.

And why do you believe it would have trouble with maneuvering targets? Because, you know, 'there's an app for that' (by that I mean a TWS sub-mode) - also can't do that in DCS, though that's mitigated because the TWS is more like SWT once you designate.

TWS in its current form isn't 'too good' in almost any way. Any advantage it may have over the real one is mitigated by lack of other TWS capabilities. This constant argument is born out of a refusal to weigh actual TWS function vs. what it does/does not do in-game.

And of course, it is then logical step that some people are wondering why not have SAHR compatible with it as it is so good. Fact is STT is used in real life more than it is usually percived in time when we have ARH & TWS...

No, what people are wondering about is very logical and has little to do with the in-game representation. The question is simple:

Why not launch the missile with TWS and guide it until terminal, then provide illumination once the missile is in place for terminal guidance?

I don't know what difference you believe this would make vs an ARH, assuming you take say, the same ARH and remove the ability to illuminate from it.

There are OTHER benefits that ARH provides, but for the simple question above, in theory there should be no difference save for the inability to disengage.

As for the use of STT, that's cool and all, but the question is WHY. And 'because it has a lot more updates per second' is not a good enough answer. Again, here and is a SO WHAT? The point here being that if you don't know, you can't really simulate it.

People keep assuming that you can magically out-maneuver TWS. It has its caveats but it's nowhere near that easy, and again, there are sub-modes to deal with that.

I worked with radars in real life with MTI/TWS and I know quite well how things work.

TWS has been used to hit multiple targets with AIM-120Bs IRL, in actual combat.

That's interesting, I was unaware of actual combat multi-trageting kill. Could you please tell us in what engagement this did happen ?

Thanks

F-15C shot down 2 Serb MiG-29s with a 2TWS shot.

https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/modern-military-aviation/112013-serbian-af-mig-29-shootdown-1999?p=2538746#post2538746

There are better sources than keypublishing for this but I don't have time to look for them right now.

That's interesting, I was unaware of actual combat multi-trageting kill. Could you please tell us in what engagement this did happen ?

Thanks

F-15C shot down 2 Serb MiG-29s with a 2TWS shot.

 

 

https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/modern-military-aviation/112013-serbian-af-mig-29-shootdown-1999?p=2538746#post2538746

 

 

There are better sources than keypublishing for this but I don't have time to look for them right now.

Thanks :thumbup:

It's better than AIM-120 Wiki page which talks about 6 kills by 6 F-15C and 2 F-16 during this conflict.

No problem. There were 3 120s launched in that engagement, I strongly suspect the first one failed to connect (or, it hit but AFTER the two TWS missiles which were launched later - yes, this is very possible and you can see it happen in DCS). Reason: Impact timing - therefore, the two TWS-guided missiles were the ones that hit.