if a missile launch, whether it be A-G or A-A, is friendly or enemy if the MWS cannot differentiate UV missile plumes? I find it difficult to believe that in a hot battlefield, the MWS would be blaring almost continuously and there's no way to filter out friendly launches of A-G mavericks. I'm told this is normal IRL. I'd really like to hear from a real combat pilot how he does not see this added "noise" as anything but distracting. You tell your wingman to attack ground targets and every mav he fires gives the MAWS a reason to go bonkers and even trips the ECM. I cannot believe that in this day and age of hi-tech that there is no IFF for missile launches.

AFAIK, no there isn't. It would require a constant flood over datalinks between all the units to know that, and currently that doesn't exist.
Before MWS, all the pilots had were their eyes, and how do you tell a friendly from an enemy missile with your eyes? Only by knowing who launched it. Besides, with blue-on-blue not being out of the question, it doesn't really matter if it's friendly, you should make sure it's not tracking you regardless!
Pilots call out launches via "Rifle" or "Fox" calls so if you got an alert simultaneous with one of those calls, you'd know to ignore that. You could also turn down the MWS volume if you liked, but I think most pilots would prefer to hear all those calls instead of possibly missing the one with their name on it.



The Jedi Master

You're telling me there's no way they could put a transmitter on the missile that sends out a specific frequency that any friendly aircraft could identify and consequently filter out? I can't believe that. Especially considering that the military would want to make it as distraction free for the pilot whose workload already is over-whelming. How do they manage the IFF between aircrafts then? Why couldn't that thinking be used for missile ID?

I remember seeing General Robin Olds in a documentary talking about the information overload pilots experienced in Vietnam. He said someone was always screaming on Guard frequency, the RWR had a steady audio output, and your Sidewinder growler was usually going off in your headset. This inundation of info often lead pilots to miss calls critical to their wellbeing. Eventually they dealt with it by turning off the RWR and other audio and depended on the ol' Mark-I eyeball to sort it out. Most AN/ALR type of RWR systems will show you a indication of which quadrant around your aircraft the threat is coming from based on the targeting radar emissions. With the proliferation of heat-seeking missiles and their passive seekers, AN/AAR MWSs use optical devices to detect the exhaust signatures of inbound missiles. I gather they do not differentiate between the heat plume of an infrared or radar guided system nor can distinguish friend from foe. All they know is that it's a threat and it's headed your way...take appropriate action.

I think IFF is only used for civvie aircraft, else why would we scramble jets out to intercept an "unknown" target?

Fly in one of the DCS A10 servers... it is very annoying to stalk your target, come in for an attack run, then have to break off due to a missile launch warning... only to have someone call out "Rifle" two seconds later. Or not even call it out at all.

But even in simming, I'd rather go defensive and find out I didn't have to than be over-confident and find myself in a flaming ball. When your actual flesh-and-blood-and-guts is on the line, you bet pilots call out "Rifle" properly to save their mates from all the "excitement" of defensive maneuvers.

LOL, I can't imagine that too many civie aircraft would have to worry whether an approaching aircraft was Friend or Foe. "Uh oh, I didn't receive the correct response, better go hot. Ooops, I'm not armed." hehe

If the MWS picks up all missile launches, does it completely break when someone is using a rocket pod?

IFF (Identification: Friend or Foe) is absolutely a military application. Civil aviation may generically refer to transponder operation as "IFF", but every military aircraft flying has IFF for the reason stated in the acronym. You don't have to log many flight hours to realize many people that have a bona fide pilot license simply do not follow rules and regulations, not the least of which is busting into air space without proper clearance. Part of obtaining said clearance is often received along with assignment of a transponder "squawk" code which uniquely identifies the aircraft so they can manage everyone within the space.

During Desert Storm I remember hearing that, due to the congested airspace with traffic ingressing and egressing the battle area, two aircraft had to confirm agreement with their respective IFFs before being cleared to engage a target BVR. The fog of war is as real today as it was in yesteryear. Battle lines are constantly changing and that unidentified aircraft at your 12 o'clock could be a bad guy or it could be an allie with a malfunctioning IFF system due to damage or simple a avionics glitch. IFF codes are changed regularly for security purposes and it would not be practical to reprogram every missile hung on every aircraft in theater.

These computer games are fun and engaging, but they do not prepare you for the real world of aerial combat where things are not orderly and sorted out.

AFAIK, IFF is a query/response system using the radar of the one making the query and separate antennas for the responder (as it may not be facing the one doing the query). It's not like all friendlies in a theater go around making a constant IFF broadcast "friendly here" as it would flood the freq with a lot of jabber. Only on a specific query from a friendly radar using IFF does it respond. I don't know if the query and response are on different freqs or not, lots of that IFF stuff is classified.
So if a missile had an IFF on it, well few radars are likely looking its direction at launch, so a query wouldn't be received from many planes in the area. An unsolicited broadcast is announcing a missile launch that could be detected by the target and is poor EMCON anyway.

The "holy grail" is a datalink network between all friendly units, air, land, and sea, in a theater that would send an "I'm firing a missile" notification to all parties. That doesn't even come close to existing yet.



The Jedi Master

I just play my flight sims with labels on. Oh wait....you guys are talking about the real world.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. A transponder is integrated into the circuitry of the missile whereby it's activated upon launch. It sends out a beacon similar to an ILS beacon (or squawk code), at a specific frequency pre-determined( ala Laser Code for GBUs). The friendly aircraft would pick this up and squelch the alert from the MWS. I can't be the first person to think about this. I still want an avionics engineer or former combat pilot to chime in here on why this would not be feasible. Everything else is speculation, but still welcomed.

I can't find squat without the labels either.


Wheels

We need much higher res than current monitors and PCs can provide to make that possible. Or, conversely, lower.

I remember back in the 90s I had a lot less problem with sims with no labels because the level of detail was so much lower that enemy units always clearly stood out from the background. Now with "improved" graphics everything blurs together...



The Jedi Master

It is that complicated.



What if the missile starts tracking you? What if the enemy sticks the same transponder on their missiles? What if they jam it?
All that aside, missiles have very limited space for electronics, and adding this only adds more maintenance items.

The MLWS exists to warn you of a missile launch so you can look in the right direction and observe whether you need to be defensive or not. You decide if the missile is tracking you and act appropriately. CMS set to AUTO is nice if you're on an attack run and concentrating on other things, or if you're flying in an environment where all you expect to encounter is the occasional MANPADS.
On the other hand, an arc-welder will trip the MLWS too.

Nothing is perfect.

I disagree. It's NOT that complicated. I think most experts would tell you that it is a cost factor more than anything else. A friendly missle tracking you is your reason for not seeing its worth? So what if the enemy sticks their own version on. "What if they jam it?" C'mon. That's why I want an expert's opinion.

Most experts aren't putting IFF systems on the missile - so I'd say they disagree with you, not with me. Cost has nothing to do with it - have a look at how much some of these weapons cost. The term you are looking for is useful cost, and what you're proposing is not useful.



I suggest that the expert's opinion is represented in the works done so far. Some missiles can communicate one-way or two-way with the host aircraft, and anything that can do more is the exception and not the rule.

And c'mon right back at you. You can't evaluate what I presented yourself?

Why is it not that complicated? How would you make it so simple? Do you honestly think that nobody has considered a way of making MAWS more accurate?

MAWS (of whatever flavour) is a relativly new system, and it has it's flaws. The thing is, RWR has exactly the same flaws, you're just as likely (if not more likely) to get a false indication from the RWR as you are from MAWS.

I get the impression you don't really understand how complicated these systems are, and are maybe placing too much faith in what they should be able to do. They are an aid to situational awareness, nothing more. Any indications such systems give are never taken as gospel, they merely provide information to the pilot.

As for what you said in rely to GG regarding jamming of your 'IFF' system, seriously how would you deal with it? If an IFF system can be jammed it cannot be relied upon, this is exactly the problem aircraft IFF has all the time in the real world. IFF is not some magic system like you see in the movies or in many sims, the most it can ever do it confirm something is friendly, the absence of a friendly IFF response does not and can not confirm something isn't friendly.

Where would you fit the electronics for your missile IFF system, both in the missles/rockets and in the aircraft?
How would you ensure the signal from the 'IFF' system would be received by all aircraft in the nearby airspace?
What procedures would you have in a friendly missile decides to track a friendly aircraft?
about surface to surface missiles, how would you achive the same thing for vehicle based and man portable anti-tank/anti-aircraft systems?
How would you deal with all the other sources of false indications?
How would you deal with the EMCON issues such a system would present?
And lastly how would you justify the cost of the design, development, testing and introduction of such a system?

Lol, I think someone's watched too many Hollywood "magic radar" movies.

A classic case of not getting the answer you want, regardless of the evidence, so pressing for someone to give you the "right" answer.



The Jedi Master

I don't understand why you guys make it so complicated. The RWR warns you of active guidance radar guided missiles tracking YOU. That is all. IR missiles, passive guidance radar missiles, AG missiles, rockets and everything else BUT active radar guided missiles tracking you do not appear on the RWR.

Sure they do - at least if you follow colloquialisms. The MLWS displays its output on the IP-1310, which is commonly known as ... the RWR display.

And it WILL show you any missile that it can detect within its limits, be it passive or active.

I don't see how it can detect a passive (as in not emitting radiation) missile. I'm neither a real pilot or an avionics engineer so if it can please tell me how.

I think it detects the IR signature of a missile launch. That's why the A-10 RWR goes haywire with Maverick and Hellfire launches.

Some combination of IR+UV detection of the rocket plume.

Well, there are three types of MWS. Radar, IR, and UV. The system installed on the A-10C (and every other MWS eqipped jet I know of) is UV.

The sensors in UV systems are nothing more complicated than CCD/CMOS sensors tuned and filtered to pick up light in the UV part of the spectrum. They detect missile launches via the UV radiation emitted by the rocket motor, which is why they can only detect a missile if one of the sensors is looking in the right direction at the time of launch, as soon as the motor has burnt out the system can't detect the incoming missile. Now as all the system does is pick up on sources of UV radiation, any UV source could (in theory) cause the system to give a launch indication. Good software with a database containing the UV signatures of known sources can help recduce false indications, but nothing can ever stop them, there are just too many variables.

Between IR and UV systems, a UV system is least prone to producing false indications, especially at low level. IR systems also require cooling (just like an IR AAM) and so have a larger footprint on the aircraft, require more maintenence and are more expensive. IR systems however are more effective at high altitude and can (again in theory, and only at high altitude) detect an incoming missile after it's motor has burnt out using the heat generated on the missile body from friction of the air. As you can imagine, at low level an IR system is very prone to false indications which is, along with their higher cost, the main reason why UV systems tend to be preferred.

Radar systems, are least prone to false indications and can obviously detect a missile if its motor is burning or not, and even (in theory) determine if it's actually directed at your aircraft. But they are much more costly, larger, heavier and complication than their UV and IR bretheren.