Radar Warning Receivers - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-21-2019, 08:57 AM   #1
mattag08
Member
 
mattag08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 156
Default Radar Warning Receivers

Background: RWRs track a wide spectrum of radar-band frequencies and use various signal processing techniques to determine what is and is not a military search or fire control radar. The signals are processed and analyzed against known threats. The RWR will then return a warning along with the type and threat level based on this processing.

From the point of view of a player with no classified knowledge of EW, but a background in physics and computing, there are areas where DCS's RWR modeling seems to fall short:

1. Radar wash and radar limits - aircraft often receive an FCR lock ("spike") indication, FCR guidance (missile launch) indication, or active radar missile homing indication when the source radar is of no threat to the aircraft in question or is well outside reasonable parameters. The beam width of a typical FCR is generally less than 1°. As a rule of thumb, this means the width of the beam is less than 1 NM for each 60 NM the radar energy travels. At ranges of less than 10 NM, the beam width is on the order of 0.1 NM.

Currently in DCS, lock and guidance indications, which occur in a situation where the radar antenna is trained on a specific target and no longer sweeping, appear on the RWR of other nearby aircraft with an extremely high frequency, even when the aircraft is significantly offset outside of the normal beam width. Additionally, for threats such as active radar homing missiles, the active radar missile warning indication appears for a significant period of time after the missile is no longer a threat. In fact, the aircraft can be behind the missile's seeker head and still receive the threat indication.

2. Radar strength and rejection - It stands to reason that RWRs have logic filters that would eliminate physical impossibilities from being displayed. Radio emissions follow the inverse square law. RWRs can detect the strength of the emission and determine the range, and thus threat level, of the source radar based on a threat catalog. Likewise, this catalog would know the maximum possible detection and launch ranges of the platforms involved. This mean an RWR should, for instance, reject a launch/guidance warning from a source radar that is beyond a reasonable distance to engage the aircraft. For example, an F/A-18C that launches an AIM-7 would generate a launch warning for any aircraft that received sufficient energy to indicate that the F/A-18C was at a reasonable range to guide a semi-active missile. Allowing for error and unknown factors (such as missile improvements), this range would likely be 40 NM at most (since a reasonable range for the missile is at best, 20 NM).

Additionally, the known capability of the FCR radar itself would be taken into account. If the radar is only capable of detecting fighter-sized targets at approximately 40 NM. It would be reasonable for the RWR to reject any radar guidance warnings of a strength that indicates that the particular radar is outside of 40 NM.

Currently in DCS it is possible to receive missile guidance and lock warnings from platforms well outside of their detection range let alone that particular platform's best missile Rmax. This physical impossibility should be filtered out by the RWR.

3. Warning decay times - RWRs must balance probability of warning (POW) against false alarm rates (FAR). This means that there is some signal processing time that must occur for the RWR to determine whether or not the received radar energy is in fact a threat radar and then to classify that threat. Higher confidence reduces false alarms, but increases the processing time. However, in aerial engagements, this increased processing time also comes at another price, the inability of an aircraft to know when he is "naked". In other words, how quickly the pilot is made aware that the enemy has stopped locking, guiding, or searching for his aircraft. This information is vital in beyond visual range missile engagements.

Currently in DCS, warning decay times are excessive. Multiple seconds elapse between a threat disappearing and the warning stopping. At best, 1-2 seconds is the longest period a threat should remain after the source signal is lost.

All of these issues means that RWR usage in DCS is difficult at best and worthless at other times. A DCS pilot simply cannot rely on the RWR to produce accurate, useful warnings in a busy battlespace. Only in small-scale, set-piece air battles can a pilot expect to be able to use the RWR to a reasonable degree.

The above is based on my personal testing and observations in the sim and my own reading and knowledge on the various physical principles involved. I would be interested to know what other people think or if there is other evidence that demonstrates that DCS's RWR modelling is actually accurate.
mattag08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2019, 01:06 PM   #2
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 30,263
Default

This isn't research, this is a bunch of incorrect assumptions.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2019, 03:43 AM   #3
Sandman1330
Member
 
Sandman1330's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
This isn't research, this is a bunch of incorrect assumptions.
He’s actually pretty correct, especially regarding point #1, which has been a pet peeve of mine for some time in game.

Wrong section of the forum, perhaps.
__________________
Ryzen 9 3900X / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW3 / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 960 Evo M.2 / Saitek X56 / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Rift S
Sandman1330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2019, 04:33 AM   #4
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 30,263
Default

He's certainly wrong about #1. Most FCR beamwidths are over 1 degree for one unless you have a fairly large antenna ... and that's with modern SAMs. Onboard missile radars have much larger beamwidth but again, minor detail.


As for missiles appearing on RWR well after they should no longer do so, sure - there are absolutely issues with these 'air mines' floating around doing nothing but bothering your RWR.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2019, 06:41 AM   #5
will-
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattag08 View Post
Background: Currently in DCS, lock and guidance indications, which occur in a situation where the radar antenna is trained on a specific target and no longer sweeping, appear on the RWR of other nearby aircraft with an extremely high frequency, even when the aircraft is significantly offset outside of the normal beam width. Additionally, for threats such as active radar homing missiles, the active radar missile warning indication appears for a significant period of time after the missile is no longer a threat. In fact, the aircraft can be behind the missile's seeker head and still receive the threat indication.
missiles in dcs will turn around and kill you, so that RWR to the rear is accurate in game.
__________________
Intel i9-9900K 32GB DDR4, RTX 2080tiftw3, Windows 10, 1tb 970 M2, TM Warthog, 4k 144hz HDR g-sync.
will- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2019, 10:21 AM   #6
Beamscanner
Member
 
Beamscanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: tatooine
Posts: 684
Default

DCS does generally do a poor job at modeling RWRs, but your points are wrong.

1. Way off on FCR beam widths. And because of the inverse square law, RWRs can detect much more than the main beam of the FCR. But that's dependent on range. Also, multi-path can cause detections.

2. DCS F-15 and SU-27 RWRs will straight up indicate the targets range. IRL, RWR ranges are very course estimates that do not account for atmospheric attenuation or the noise of the local EM environment. The RWR may not even know if it detected a main beam, sidelobe or multi-path reflection. Or perhaps you're in a climb and the signal came into your RWR antenna's sidelobe and were thus weaker.

Ignoring Missile launches "beyond 40 miles away" may result in ignoring a missile launch 20 miles away too...

3. A short decay time, say 2 seconds, means dealing with new threat indications every time the enemy radar scans off and back on you. (ie F/A-18 symbol pops in and out of ur RWR scope becuase his radars scan is longer than your RWRs decay time)

Its just not practical. Especially when trying to correlate "new hits" to the same RWR threat.


HB's F-14 RWR is modeled very well.
Beamscanner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2019, 06:58 PM   #7
mattag08
Member
 
mattag08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beamscanner View Post
DCS does generally do a poor job at modeling RWRs, but your points are wrong.

1. Way off on FCR beam widths. And because of the inverse square law, RWRs can detect much more than the main beam of the FCR. But that's dependent on range. Also, multi-path can cause detections.

2. DCS F-15 and SU-27 RWRs will straight up indicate the targets range. IRL, RWR ranges are very course estimates that do not account for atmospheric attenuation or the noise of the local EM environment. The RWR may not even know if it detected a main beam, sidelobe or multi-path reflection. Or perhaps you're in a climb and the signal came into your RWR antenna's sidelobe and were thus weaker.

Ignoring Missile launches "beyond 40 miles away" may result in ignoring a missile launch 20 miles away too...

3. A short decay time, say 2 seconds, means dealing with new threat indications every time the enemy radar scans off and back on you. (ie F/A-18 symbol pops in and out of ur RWR scope becuase his radars scan is longer than your RWRs decay time)

Its just not practical. Especially when trying to correlate "new hits" to the same RWR threat.


HB's F-14 RWR is modeled very well.
I didn't think about sidelobes, but that makes sense.

For 2, I get launch warnings from aircraft that are 100+ NM away. Pick whatever number you want, eventually there should be a cut off where the RWR can't distinguish it from background noise.

For 3, I wasn't clear, but I'm talking about missiles, launches, and spikes. All things you would know have dropped off quickly. I do agree with your point about nails. One of the big offenders is the missile radar indication will continue for 15+ seconds after the missile has passed you by and is no longer pointed at you at all (180° behind the missile).
mattag08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.