GumidekCZ

Bumping up, to be more visible to ED devs and Admins. Hopefully, they will notice some day, and someone will take look into it.

Guys, please, lets stick with topic. We are searching for evidence outside of DCS (real world) to compare it with APG-73 performance in DCS. Not to solve, why somebody cant lock MiG-23. If needed, create another topic or bug report with track and acmi attached. Thanks. Sadly as I spend couple of days searching any real world evidence, Im slowly loosing ideas, where else I can search for any valuable information. Not even single RCS value (or airframe type) detected at certain range was found . I really hope, that others like you, will be more lucky in that.

DCS 2.7.1.7139 Bug as reptort name, described here:

Where did get that? You know what equation ED uses for detections? Im more than sure that this equation is not part of any script id DCS. Some much more simple one, may be somehow similar. It would very interesting, if ED could show us the equation, but I doubt that they will. We all know that ED uses for its scan performance definitions hard limits. Thats also reason, why you cant have HITS on your scope (radar return of low intensity which cant be declared as contact). With hard limit value, you simply have radar contact or not.

Some of these RCS values are another proof, that ED didn't made any deeper search for more less "correct" values. And RCS is now roughly based on size. One example for all: All sources across the internet will tell you that F-16A version has twice or more RCS than its C version block 50and newer. In DCS... Both variants have same value. But even bigger question raises, if we start debate, if this all matters, if ED is not counting with any loadout on pylons. Problem is, that ED would than need defined RCS value for every pylon and every weapon. But this should be discussed in another separate topic.

It have to show radar scanned limits with correct angles (azimuth and elevation angles) for every bar number setting. If TDC lower height value is at level with airplane, than the bottom yellow line have to be exactly on middle green horizon line. Not 2-3° bellow. Same thing should work for upper scan angle limit. ------------- REPORTED AS A BUG ---------------

Of course you can do that. But radar FOV limits should still represent exact limits of scanned area, even when scaled. There is no reason to have blind stripes inside of radar FOV rectangle. This what MANUAL say, not a word about blind areas bellow upper and above lower radar FOV limit.

Speaking of AZ/EL dispaly, recently I noticed, that FOV yellow rectangle do Not show exact limits of radar scan, but few degrees more (2-3°). So if you move your scan zone so that targets symbol almost touches the yellow line, ... contact will disappear. In other words, there is a blind area on the lower and upper edge of AZ/EL rectangle. THIS IS A BUG. If any of you will think the same, will than report this as a BUG. Luckily, this weird feature doesnt affect the sides of AZ/EL rectangle. Simillar test done, when I flown straight and set bottom scan altitude on radar display under TDC to my cooaltitude. The AZ/EL FOV yellow line was this 2-3° bellow horizon line.

Hi guys, does this method works for you even now after latest OB? For me, old TGP not overwriting coordinates in JDAM when slewing around, Undesignate button will erase coordinates from JDAM MSN page. FLIR is able to overwrite coordinates in JDAM, same as for TGP, Undesignate button will also erase coordinates from JDAM MSN page.

May be you can ask him also about this:

When testing ranges, I also come to one weird thing, and thats upper hemisphere detection with AN/APG-73 is NOT automaticly striped of Doppler speed limits. Which are now 100kph or 27,78m/s. With such "modern" radar which also served shortly on Super Hornet, I would expect some automatic function like MLC AUTO in F-14 tomcat had many years before APG-73. Edit: For others, reading this topic, I must point out, that detect ranges were found with smallest radar scan settings possible. Any larger scan area will prolong time to detect the target after it pass by limit range for such RCS and thus the actual detection range can be much shorter (also depends on closure speed).

Could this performance for APG-73 be from RW, or close to real? https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/15964-rafale-vs-gripen?page=7 APG-73 (F/A-18E/F, Block1) - (from Block2 was eqiped with APG-79 AESA) For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+ ??? For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 10~11 km+ (5.5-6.1nm)->in DCS 5,5nm RWS / 3.0nm FLANK / 3.0nm BEAM (10nm ACM all) For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 32~36 km+ (18-20nm)->in DCS 17.5nm HOT /9.5nm FLANK /9.5nm BEAM For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 56~64 km+ (30-35,5nm)->in DCS 31nm /31nm FLANK /31nm BEAM For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 84~96 km+ (46.6-53,3nm)->in DCS 47nm HOT / 47 FLANK / 47nm BEAM For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 100~114 km+ (55.5-63nm)->in DCS 56nm HOT / 56 FLANK / 52nm BEAM DCS values checked by me, editing RCS values and than testing at 36000 ft, targets 2000 ft higher alt than me in Hornet. Scan zone AZ20° 1BAR. INT and HI PRF. Acording to values given from link page, DCS APG-73 is in average some 6% bellow average detection distance... which is far better than I was expecting. Big question now is the RCS values of each aircraft type in DCS.

If ED will stick with E-2C version, than they still need replace old AN/APS-138 for newer AN/APS-145 (40% improved range) which was introduced together with JTIDS and Link 16. https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V23-N2-3/23-02-Sunday.pdf "In the early 1990s, the Group 0 and Group I aircraft began a transition to a new Group II configuration. A new radar, the AN/APS-145, increased target detection range and further improved tracking capabilities. The MC, the main combat system in the aircraft, was upgraded to increase speed and functionality, and operator displays were improved. The Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) data link provided an enhanced capability to communicate with other members of the battle group and joint forces, and the Global Positioning System (GPS) improved aircraft navigational accuracy." https://digilander.libero.it/humboldt/pdf/ANAPS-145.pdf

E-3A virants were upgraded to AN/APY-2 AESA radar, so the designation of Sentry model doesnt really matter. https://sciendo.com/downloadpdf/journals/bsaft/25/2/article-p103.xml https://www.airvectors.net/ave3.html "The E-3 has evolved considerably over the decades. The original 24 "Core" E-3s were, as mentioned, upgraded to E-3B standard under the "Block 20" program, which featured an improved AN/APY-2 radar, with a basic maritime surveillance mode -- as well as CC-2 processor, plus addition of five more SDUs, for a total of 14 operator stations. The first upgrade was redelivered in 1984. The nine "Standard" E-3s, the E-3Cs, were the same, but added "Have Quick" secure voice radios. " On top of that, try to prove here, that there was E-3 with AN/APY-1 able work with Link16 datalink ... Link16 was installed after 1990´s and therefore that E-3 already equiped with AN/APY-2. Link16 service: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/comms-through-the-aerial-layer/ "The Link 16 data link debuted in the 1970s with large terminals at ground stations and aboard AWACS. Air Force F-15Cs then acquired the links, and by the 1990s, Link 16 reached a range of US and NATO fighters and airborne battle managers like JSTARS, Rivet Joint, and the NATO alliance’s own AWACS aircraft." This is E-3A before upgrade: Its easy to recognize that this old variant with AN/APY-1 is missing something, that we have on model in DCS. Boeing E-3A 61606 at Tinker AFB Oklahoma, November 1981

I REALLY DONT WANT to read, what I shall do. I know that MEM thing. I WANT this bug to be fixed by ED! THIS IS A BUG REPORT, not a kind ask about help. EDIT: What a stupid thing, to change MEM setting every time you change PRF - this isnt really helping pilot to reduce his workload. I would bet, that INTL mod had something special setting already set in avionics IRW. If ED have different data to confirm this weird radar MEM INTL thing, that it is Ok as it is. Hope that this theory ED have also confirmed but some RL Hornet pilots. Sorry guys, I didnt wanted to be rude. My apology. But I really hate this stupid INTL mod feature.

I re-run test mission from this topic: in DCS 2.7.1.7029 Open Beta, And I found that Hornet radar have BUG now in loosing contacts very frequently, many times lead to AIM-120 unable to be supported (AIM-120 now have also BUG in onboard INS not working at all - unable to fly to predicted impact point after loosing D/L support). AN,APG73_loosing_BUG_.trk

Me and my friends, we think that Hornets radar AN/APG-73 is now underperforming and we are searching to any kind of proof, which can help us to create bug report about it. I searched for similar topics about AN/APG-73, but didn’t found any, may be due to my stupidness PLEASE, if you have any materials, RW data, DCS testing ideas which can confirm current radar not performing like it should. Please post it here, I would be very thankful to you. But be careful with what kind of material are you posting here, we don’t want to trigger some forum poclicy issues here.

Northstar98, all types of decoys and defensive maneuvering would be great, if the ship can angle itself to bring as many weapons against the threat with minimising any possible damge by enemy missiles/projectiles. But this would be very long run for ED team I think. This topic is about Phalanx system, so lets stick with it

Thanks for support, I hope that somebody from ed will soon take closer look on not only US phalanx system. At the same time also improving Russian Kashtan/Kortik and it's 30mm gatling gun having same problems. Together with improving accuracy and sensors of RIM-166. US fleet will finally have a chance to defend self through the mission, not only for single attack and after that being just floating piece of scrap metal.

Phalanx have now on current OB three major issues which make it just garbage on the deck: 1) Phalanx never realoading - IRL can be done from 5 - 10 minutes. 2) Phalanx not counting any turns of the target into its lead angle calculation - it never can hit poping missile, until it fly straight before impacting hull of ship. 3) Phalanx start to shoot from 3NM distance, which is IRL max WEZ. This range is unfortunately totaly inefficient, because at collision point with missile, bullets will have such huge spread, that chance of hit is just pathetic. Range of WEZ like 1,5-2NM have much more sence and is much more efficient in term of used ammo to kill incoming missile. Currnet Phalanx state in DCS can be nicely depicted looking on following picture, where only single missiles was hit Phalanx in range of 2300ft from targeted ship (CG-47) , 2 missiles hit by SM_2 (RIM-7) Seasparrow, 1 hit by RIM-166, 1 reached the hull of ship. Again, Phalanx cant reload, so one more attack like this, and Phalanx is out of ammo till the end of mission.

I dont have any of AD 2.19 charts, all I have is this: https://ais.airport.ir/69/-/document_library_display/UtmuerbUoVOY/view/67925061?_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_topLink=home&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_delta1=20&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_keywords=&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_advancedSearch=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_andOperator=true&p_r_p_564233524_resetCur=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_cur1=1 And all points I have mentioned above are true. Except the JASK one, it already has the NDB 349 in DCS.

Flappie, I did Re-Run of your test mission, with only single RIM-116 missile hits taget. RIM-116 really need some love and boost, otherwise its just piece of crap launched with some smoke. RIM-116_Pk_LOW.trk Also, RIM-116 have less smoke than in game, as you can see in vid. In DCS it has solid rocket motor - full smoke, no transparency. Something like exhaust = { 0.7, 0.7, 0.7, 0.5 }, (half transparent)

There is no timeline in DCS. Look at some of ED naval or ground assets or compare this E-2 with Dekas KJ-2000 or JD-17. Change of some values in script is very easy a to single ED dev will take no more than one hour to do this.

Same wrong RWR indications with SAM units locking others, my plane within roughly -+40° azimuth. FA-18C_RWR_BUG_SAM.trk