Kev2go

We don't have an APG65 but an APG 73 phase 2 ( or at least should given what was deduced). You should have been able to figure out iwas specifically referring to EXP 3 which uses not DBS but SAR ( Its in the title of the thread, and therefore the focus of the discussion). Im not going to clutter this thread with more specifics. Its all there in the thread that was linked, and in fact points made are very pertinent to this specific radar system. Even that aside nor does it change the fact that outside specific radar model itself the A/G tech is very WIP, and certain objects simply aren't programmed for A/G to recognize them or render them in. You clearly have not been following the new discussions.

Its true you will need GMT for radar to be useful against ground vehicles, and SEA mode to make the most of attacking surface ships but that being said It seems map mode is indeed somewhat under performing in resolution/ distance of which things become sharp. Even certain objects arent programmed to render into the A/G map yet. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4461491&postcount=69 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=283300&page=8

an example of objects that A/G isn't program to "see" yet

Ah yes my mistake. Right with the ER's still having a slightly modified AGM65F sensor like the preceding SLAM . I had assumed an improved one was used given the different shape IR sensor of the missile. IN any case I would like to think the AGM84 ATA would be included. Although "ATA" aspect is not explicitly mentioned the planned SLAM ER variants were the AGM84H and the AGM84K. Various sources say that ATA functionality was fairly quickly retrofitted to all initial production SLAM ER's. ATA did become a standard feature. IF we have a "circa 2005" Hornet then it should probably have it since the ATA updated AGM84H/K had IOC declared in 2002 and saw its combat debut during OIF 2003. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2002-09-16-Boeing-SLAM-ER-Becomes-First-Missile-with-Operational-Automatic-Target-Acquisition https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/agm-84-d_2002.pdf

the AGM84E used an AGM65F IR seekerhead. Its imaging quality is better than the AGM62's seeker, its just that image quality is degraded due to an older datalink system producing static like interference in the video feed.

it will get better with the SLAM ER. Longer stand off range, better optical sensor, and automatic target recognition.

:thumbup:

Yea i have a pdf copy of those white papers DL somewhere . IM glad you shared them here as i didn't have the http links on hand. . Indeed really good stuff especially when considering the tech and timeframe of the APG70, but if im not mistaken as the paper says the 4 foot resolution was an upgraded improvement that came about around 1996/1997ish. However comparatively APG76 is impressive for its time when it was capable of within a patch of 0.8 NM haivng a resolution of 1 foot. at 29.6 nautical miles. With regards to the Hornet, If thats the particular resolution we are limited to in DCS at such a close at such a distance, and you agree the CIP images are right on the money of what a Phase 2 should look like than I think certainly we can agree the DCS APG73 is not performing to the accuracy its supposed to . That is assuming Lot 20's do in fact 100% certainty have RUG2's ( not doubting you but i just haven't seen any sources myself or definitive clarification or from ED on radar version).

Not necessarily. APG70 of the Strike Eagle and somewhat lesser extent APG76 of the F4E Kurnas 2000 had quite good SAR resolution for their time if you look at thier cited resolution and patch sizes at a given range, and resolution especially relative to the APG73 ( which i think its the phase 1 not Phase 2 since the latter the manufacturer claims to have good enough SAR able to be used with JSOW and SLAM at standoff ranges) we see in DCS.

some first tries with the new EXP modes AS discussed the resolution does get better the closer you get to a given point. Also the angle of which you position your aircraft radar makes an impact on resolution. The radar will automatically jumps out from EXP3, to EXP2, and eventually EXP1, if you get under a certain distances. I can't recall them off the top of my head but this is normal. Setting up a SA2 sam site, they do eventually become spottable close enough and going into EXP2. SAR of Beruit coastline

they would be forced to depending on the necessity or what the stakes are. F15E's cant be everywhere at once or be expected to be filling the slack for other military branches all the time. Their not as plentiful in quantity as Vipers or Hornets were produced. In older conflicts Vipers and Hornets were pretty much dumb bombers anyways, before TGP's became commonplace and before the existance of GPS. The Lantirns were prioritized for Strike eagles in GF1, even though the block 40/42's could use them.

latter. But then again really because as of present day you actually have that luxuary. YOu have much newer technology in 2020 than you did a decade and a half ago not to mention various other recon assets to help build a picture that you simply do have in DCS. and FYI the APG73 isnt really 70s radar anymore. thast was APG65. its Late 80s tech if looking at the Phase1. And 90s A/G SAR tech if looking at the Phase 2 upgrade modules. In Present day Legacy Hornets are retired from the USN active duty service, as are most Block 1 super Hornets. The Navy workhorse are now the block 2 super hornets and they have APG79. USMC is in the process of upgrading Legacies with a smaller APG79, ANG are upgrading thier Vipers APG83 AESA, Strike Eagles Mech A/G radar was better than most, but even some SE now have APG82 AESA., and beyond these upgraded legacy platforms you have the JSF. However we do not have such modern assets in DCS . Circa 2005 Hornet and a Circa 2007ish viper. Back then the only assets that had AESA radars were the F15C ( and only some) and the then new F22 raptor, none of which are meant to be utilized as strike platforms. Th APG79 was barely a thing for the super Hornet at that particular time. I dont think we will get any sort of AESA radars in DCS for a long time. The best radars will F15E's APG70 coming from Razbam followed by the EF's Captor.

huh.... It would be unusual to have Aim9X but no jhmcs considering that from what ive read SE crews got JHMCS first years before they ever got AIm9x integration. In fact Aim9x for strike eagles surprisingly recent. https://www.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/142892/airmen-enhance-f-15e-capabilities-with-helmet-mounted-cueing-system/ https://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1479980/366th-fighter-wing-receives-new-weapon-for-f-15e/

THe F16's APG58 V5 doesnt have SAR/EXP3 to begin with. It was only ever limited to DBS/ EX1 and EXP2. One must also consider that the APG70 quality of SAR itself depends on the timeframe. The SE APG70 got upgrades that improved its SAR map quality from " high resolution to " super high resolution" circa 1997ish and onwards. I cant recall exactly how much resolution was further improved atm. IL have to dig up that particular whitepaper. So even then it depends. Would be unreasonable to think APG73 Phase 2 at least near peer to old APG70 mapping quality, especially when APG73 had technology and parts commonality revived from it? OR perhaps we are only looking at the APG73 phase 1 only as a comparison, which fits that explanation why it would be limited and something of a "poor mans " sar trick. to quote: "incorporates a motion-sensing subsystem with reconnaissance software, a stretch waveform generator module, and a special test equipment instrumentation and reconnaissance module. With these enhancements, the F/A-18 aircraft will have the hardware capability to make high-resolution radar ground maps comparable with those of the F-15E, and U2 aircraft to be able to perform precision strike missions using advanced image correlation algorithms." Various sources outside the manufacture also state along these lines. Improved quality SAR, and new additional RECCE Spotlight ans strip map modes although i have not been able to verify which legacies got Phase 2 upgrades, but certainly that 1998 was when it was finishing final evaluation in first phase 2's were being issued in 1999. Final APG73 to delivered was in 2006.

Block 1 series (lot 21-25) Super Hornets still had APG73 radar, just as late model Legacy F/A18C/D's. Block 2 Super Hornets had a redesigned nose to house the APG79, although due to some developmental issues, even some early block 2' Super Hornets ( Lot 26-28 ) still initially had APG73's until they got APG79 refits I would imagine an APG79 AESA radar would overall be superior to the APG70, except for maybe absolute maximum detection ranges? Unless we are talking the APG82 AESA that some F15E's have recieving in the last couple years, but is not yet standard across all SE's?

Not to detract from the point you are making or go OT as the real issue is of old DCS engine not being able to recognize ground obects. But you yourself said those are legit images of APG73 SAR maps taken specifically from usmc F/A18D's in conjunction with ATARS ( it was stated as much in the paper) , then thats how can be certain the Phase 2 upgrades of radar even if its not explicitly mentioned . I know thats about CIP processing but i simply included the link to the original source it so naysayers here wouldn't claim those were doctored images. Although nowhere explicity stated it was APG73 phase 2, i got there via by deductive reasoning. Phase 2 had software to also make possible use with reconnaissance pods such ATARS or later SHARPS to transmit over SAR map's back over to HQ, in addition to having improved higher resolution sar, rather than "medium resolution SAR" Since the Phase 2 is capable of higher resolution and "recce" additional Spotlight and strip modes. Those images show close zoom level and crisper detail overall not just of objects relative to Then what we have seen so far within DCS. Again it might be possible that ED has only chosen to model a APG73 Phase 1. Or perhaps A/G is still highly work in progress, since purely from DCS comparisons we can see differences in magnification and Image quality in EXP 3 between what was shown in the video and preceding WIP screenshots.

Yup it was a slippery slope. But its not all ED. Apparently if enough people whine for unathentic features, ED sometimes caves in as we saw with LAu88 being re added for the to do list, or how eventually ED added the addon Cheek station TGP mount for the litening 2 in spite of actual USMC Hornet pilot going that had gone into that given thread and informed people it was never adopted.

No one suggested it warbirds yet. But the OP did have UH1H in the title, and in other threads he did argue anything could use them because of how easy integration is. And as to the Hornet getting cheek station Litening. Yeah it shouldn't since its not a EF18 Hornet , nor was it initially planned. As an Interim to the ATFLIR, the litening 2 was only supposed to have been added for centerline position like the USMC do use it, but you know it seems to becoming a bad habbit that if a given community whines hard enough, ED may cave in to the mob over unrealistic features, like we saw with the this aforementioned cheek station TGP issue , or with the F16's getting LAU88 put back on the planned list.

what? Ww2 warbirds never carried hydra rocket pods. Just because it was being developed in the 40s post ww2 doesn't and that hydras are derived from them mean it went into service with them Hydras didn't really become issued until the 50s for ground attack and even then ww2 warbirds or even Korean era f86f didn't get these. So nope. Unless you have a valid primary source documentation like a manual that says they could, then you are just playing in the realm of speculative fi/ alt historical fantasy realm., to try to say that apkws could and should be slapped on to them. Because we certainly don't have Mark 80s, cbus or gb12s slapped onto warbirds or Sabres, and give lack of any precision capability or needed with a digital sms system,means even those would be simpler to integrate

If only there were other intended uses for the A/G radar besides INS updates.

right So i guess when GPS is jammed, and/or bad weather prevents any effective TGP use because the radar is still deemed useless they decide to call it a day and go home ? K Got it.

No of course not. The answer is: its F-35 JSF, or F-15E's. Then nothing

Useless in the context of last couple decades of nothing but middle east low intensity warfare in ideal weather conditions and a permissive environment against small groups of irregular fighters. Sure. Then you have the luxury of not caring about A/G Radar.

No one saying its great. And anyone saying it sucks? Its all relative to what it is compared to. Maybe your discord "SME" from the now cancelled SH mod said so because they flew jets that only had APG73 Phase 1 and not the Phase 2? Or perhaps because of that 1 specific individual that i think you are referring are said it was sucky because is now been flying SH for many years and thus ends up comparing memories of the APG73 to the APG79 AESA radar? So you cannot get a good idea on how the SAR really is if it is only in the vaguest terms and only relative to a AESA radar as a comparison from a few discord tidbits. In any case all this drama could be avoided if only ED had clarified which APG73 version we were getting for certain.

the modern era AT6 texan isn't the same old texan from the 40s that your ww2 pilots trained on. The current At6's have had totally new integrated digital avionics suite. Even more so since the At6 is now being further revamped and marketed as a COIN light attack aircraft for the export market it gets a full suite of weapons as well.