Help support TMP


"A few Questions" Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Game Design Message Board

Back to the Playtest Message Board

Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion Message Board


588 hits since 13 Nov 2010
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

The Membership System will be closing for maintenance in 6 minutes. Please finish anything that will involve the membership system, including membership changes or posting of messages.

Tommiatkins13 Nov 2010 5:24 a.m. PST

Will a radar painting an aircraft always set off a RWR?
Does a pilot know the difference between being painted and being locked onto by a missile? (im suspecting yes from reading trashy Dean Brown novels)

What sort of range does a typical RWR have?

Also on a seperate note:
I am devising the missile system for the Blazing Skies Jet version.
So far a turn looks like this

Measure angles to determine inititive
Choose Manouvers
Launch Chaff Flares
Declare targets
Measure angle of attack
Measure ranges
Measure angle of incidence to target
Roll for Paint/Lockons as per range and angles power of radar etc
Launch missiles
All planes manouver
Missiles manouvers
Check missile for going ballistic

My question is. Is this too many steps in a turn?
Blazing Skies (Jets) is a one pilot to each player game, so the above can take over a minuite to calculate and execute.

Anyones comments on if this is too long would be appreciated.

Personal logo Inari7 Supporting Member of TMP13 Nov 2010 6:54 a.m. PST

If you are only playing one pilot per plane then a turn sequence can be longer.

If you were controlling 4-5 planes then your game would bog down.

John D Salt13 Nov 2010 8:38 a.m. PST


Will a radar painting an aircraft always set off a RWR?

I have little understanding of this here modern electrickery, but I think it is inadvisable ever to say "always" in any radary sort of context. Remember, the 100% detection range of all radars is exactly the same, and is precisely zero.

It also depends on what you mean by "paint". If you mean the radar registering a return blip, then all other thing sbeing equal the odds have to be stacked strongly in favour of the RWR. EM energy dissipates according to the inverse-square law, but for the radar to get a blip the energy has to make it both ways, whereas for the RWR it only needs to make it over the first leg; so the RWR is working on an inverse-squared range law, while the poor radar is using inverse-fourth-power.

Other things are, of course, never equal, and you have to reckon on differences in antenna gain (a huge factor), how well the RWR is tuned to the frequency its trying to detect, and whether the radar is doing any of these modern sneaky-beaky spread-spectrum LPI type things.

For practical game purposes, it might be easiest to have some simple rule that gives an obvious but not absolute advantage, like whatever the radar's detection roll is, the RWR succeeds if it gets the same roll in two attempts. The RWR's advantage must be pretty substantial in order for tactics like "pecking the lobes" to make any sense.

All the best,

John.

RockyRusso Inactive Member13 Nov 2010 10:46 a.m. PST

Hi

Errr…no

First, radar doesn't always work.

But that isn't your issue, I think. Here is the procedure, the system sees a blip and the operator focuses on this particular blip. Remember, in 'nam, Red Crown might see 300 blips on the screens.

THEN, in the aircraft, the crew may or may not be correctly told about trade in the area. The RIO picks one of his blips, focuses on it. At this point the system changes frequency AND pulse rate.

Lots of stray microwaves in the sky from all those systems, it is not until the specific focus, frequency and pulse changes that the target knows he has been "painted">

This has nothing to do with the missile.

When the missile closes, it sets off a completely different fairly dumb system that is more "proximity" and shift than actually tracking the missile as in the movies.

At basic, only when being targeted does the target have a chance of knowing he has been targeted, only when the missile closes does he have a chance of knowing this part. How you game this is up to you.

Flares are for heat seekers. Heat seekers do not produce a positive emission and do not announce the "lock" to the target but may trigger the "tail warning radar" as mentioned above with proximity.

The way to game these systems is different.

Further, you can treat the shoot effectively as a matter of statistics OR you can fly the missile. Despite the wonderful power/weight ratio of the missile, their speed alone means that they often get defeated by being unable to turn into the target. Again, not like in the movies.

Rocky

E Murray Inactive Member13 Nov 2010 5:23 p.m. PST


so the RWR is working on an inverse-squared range law, while the poor radar is using inverse-fourth-power.

Um … no. The radar is still following an inverse-square law, but since the return signal has traveled twice as far, the intensity is one-fourth the value at the target.

raylev3 Supporting Member of TMP13 Nov 2010 8:37 p.m. PST

These days US aircraft don't waste time putting the pilot in the loop for popping flares….it's automatic. When the aircraft believes it's being painted, flares pop. Only then is the pilot aware he's POSSIBLY being painted.

John D Salt14 Nov 2010 5:00 a.m. PST

E Murray wrote:



so the RWR is working on an inverse-squared range law, while the poor radar is using inverse-fourth-power.

Um … no. The radar is still following an inverse-square law, but since the return signal has traveled twice as far, the intensity is one-fourth the value at the target.

Let's assume the the range to the target is ten kilometres. Using a simple-minded inverse-sqared range law, the energy at the target (ignoring all other factors such as antenna gain) will be, say, one one hundredth of that emitted, because 10^2 = 100. The same range-squared attentuation on the return path reduces this by the same factor, so the returned energy is one-ten-thousandth of that emitted (100 x 100 = 10000), which is not a quarter, nor yet a fourth, of that at the target. Now, why, exactly, do you think that 10000 is not equal to 10 ^ 4?

This also explains why EW people normally talk in decibels, because it makes the numbers less tiny-and-huge.

All the best,

John.

RockyRusso Inactive Member14 Nov 2010 11:03 a.m. PST

Hi

Heat seekers: flares.

R

Lion in the Stars Supporting Member of TMP15 Nov 2010 1:58 p.m. PST

As described, radars *usually* change certain attributes when they go from "who's out there?" mode to "watch this guy" mode.

Certain radars, which have a dedicated operator (so AWACS, JSTARS or other large birds), don't do that. Those are the dangerous ones.

Essentially, a RWR has a range of double that of the tracking radar, but you have to account for the curve of the earth sometimes.

Tommiatkins15 Nov 2010 10:57 p.m. PST

Thanks for all the input chaps!

I'm also by the way looking for some playtesters for the new game. Shout out if your want a transfer to the test flight squadron.

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.