Beamscanner

Shouldn't the radar circle disappear after locking a target with the JHMCS?

Sorry if this was asked already, I searched for a previous thread about this and couldn't find one. Is it worth upgrading from the G1 to the G2? Is a G3 on the horizon? My only issue with the G1 is a lack of clarity. The center is pretty clear if I place the headset in the perfect spot. But any minor head movement will throw it out of focus.

Looking to get feed back on some RWR audio I'm building. After cross checking my audio with youtube videos, I've found that some modern RWRs (in particular the F-16s RWR) can distort the tone of the emitter. This is probably due to the digital nature of this RWR, and its use of PDWs. I believe the RWR is dropping pulses or bursts of pulses due to either a weak signal or finite dynamic range causing the emitter to sound distorted. In any case I'd like to know if the community is interested in distorted tones or clean tones. Below is an example of my F-15 search tone, lock tone, and distorted lock tone. Note: All airborne tones im building are based off of generic (but unique) PRIs in the MPRF range (10khz - 50khz) since HPRF tones would be above our ears capacity to hear. You may be thinking, 'well 20k-50k is also above our ears perception'. This is true, however the complex string of square pulses generate beat frequencies within our range of hearing, albeit at a lower volume. HPRFs use extremely high tones around 300khz, and dont have the same pulse complexity. For best effect, download the audio and loop play it. You may need to turn the volume up. (F-15) Search.ogg ^F-15 Search (F-15) Lock.ogg ^F-15 Lock (F-15) Lock (distorted).ogg ^F-15 Lock (distorted)

RF Theory knowledge + Youtube video with a real SA-6 tone + approximated main beam and sidelobes based on RF and antenna size. I threw together a python script in GNU radio that will make complex PRI trains with square waves and the correct pulse duration. Normal online tone generators will make a square wave at a given prf, but they wont do complex PRIs (ie a jitter, stagger, dwell and switch, etc), they also wont alter the duty cycle/pulse duration. My script does all of this. After i enter the parameters into my script, generating my desired complex PRI and PDs, I open the audio file in audacity and apply the main beam and side lobes effects into the appropriate scan time. The locked on tone doesn't have the scan applied to it. I think anyone who's heard a real radar tone will be satisfied. Here's another post with my F-5 (APQ-159) radar tone.

What currently works: STT stays locked if the target is initially locked from RWS/TWS and changing to DGFT (ACM) mode. As long as the target was locked outside of DGFT mode, you can swap back and forth just fine. What doesn't work: If you initially lock the target in DGFT mode, swapping modes (to MRM, Nav, etc) will drop the target.

haha ur not wrong

HPRF was quite limited in the -68 and not utilized in RWS/TWS. Its comparing apples to apples if we focus on RWS/TWS/STT detection ranges. The modes you can actually fight with. For this same reason, Im not talking about -73's VS mode.

Im aware.. If you read my linked post, you'd see I never called it the -73. Nor did I say this was the doc to use for the -73 or -63 ranges in DCS. On the topic of Viper radar vs hornet radar, its useful to cite a study provided to the U.S. Government. In this we see the drastic difference between the old viper radar and the old Hornet radar. its not difficult to conclude that delta between the two upgrades (-68 and -73) would likely remain similar unless a drastic change was made (new HPRF waveform, larger antenna, etc).. which never occurred. You provided no evidence, and made illogical claims. Physics doesn't care what the intended use of your radar was. Saying the navy cared more about anti-shipping doesn't mean that air to air capabilities had to be reduced. A larger antenna, a higher duty cycle, and a larger pulse integration count (aspects of HPRF) will always prove superior to a smaller antenna using MPRF (lower duty cycle, low pulse integration). You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. IDK who marked my post as a solution. But my post clearly shows the difference a HPRF/larger antenna play on detection range.

They think the RWR would hide a threating emitter with search mode selected.. In order for an RWR to filter out tracking emitters and only display search emitters, it would first need to process and classify all the emitters it detects. So they must believe that the RWR knows there's a threat emitter tracking you, since in order to filter it out it had to process it and determine it was a tracking radar and not a search radar, but is choosing to hide that information from the pilot. On the other hand, they think having a button to hide air traffic control radars and long range search radars ("S" emitters), which would otherwise clutter the RWR scope, is the less logical usage.

not odd at all. Look at the two antennas. Antenna theory: The larger the antenna (given a fixed freq) the smaller its beam width. The APG-73 has a circular antenna. Meaning its beam width is angularly uniform (a uniform cone of emitted light). The APG-68 has an oval antenna. Meaning that the beam width is narrow in azimuth, but wide in elevation. Because the vertical diameter of the antenna is smaller, the beam it emits is wider in elevation. This means it can scan more vertical volume of space, but it also means that it concentrates less energy into a tight beam, greatly reducing its max detection range.

You have no idea what you're talking about. IRL F-16 MPRF range is about 22nmi. (Look-Up / Head-On / 50% Pd / ~5 m2 target)

Dude, no one asked about how synthetic tones work in the ALR-67. We've known about those tones for years. "DILLIGAFF?" Yes, it appears so. Don't assume that people on this forum are not in the know about EW, ELINT and Radar Theory. Be it professionally.. or not. Approachable, Creditable, humble.

yes.. we all know that PRFs are specific to the emitting radar. I have already found my information. The 45 provided PRF audio via PDWs (pulse descriptor words).. ie each radar sounds unique, and you can hear the enemy radar change modes, scan volume, etc.. All navy RWRs after that point moved to synthetic tones. "Threat Warning For Tactical Aircraft" by Robert Simmen explains much of the development history of RWRs.

I didn't realize they doing that

I am not in communication with anyone about my personally made RWR sounds. My intent is to make them freely available as a mod whenever the RWR PRF audio functionality is added to the DCS F-16. Assuming they use a system that pulls from an audio file, rather than a real time tone generator (like Heatblur did with the Viggen)

A blanket reduction in detection range for look down should only apply to Low and Medium PRF waveforms.. Depending on target closure velocity, HPRF could be completely un-effected by look down. A high Vc look down scenario wouldn't be hindered by clutter at all, bc the ground clutter (main beam, altitude line and side-lobe clutter) is not on the same frequency as the targets reflection. Look down scenarios only effect HPRF with the targets Vc is close to main beam, altitude line and side-lobe clutter doppler freq. (ie if the targets Vc is roughly between zero and ownship speed) EDIT: Watch this video starting at 9:15. Notice that when point the antenna down, the ground clutter pops up, but it only exists on a narrow band of velocity (doppler freq). His target doesn't disappear, and the targets SNR doesn't change. If the targets velocity slowed down, it possible that its return could hide in the clutter. But if it slowed down in a look up condition, the clutter wouldn't be there, and the radar could track it through the zero doppler region. This is true for all HPRF waveforms.

I believe the DCS APG-73 is currently slightly underperforming against large RCS targets. Spudknocker's recent test video indicates that the DCS APG-73 is detecting the SU-27 at 48 nmi and the Mig-21 at 38 nmi in optimal conditions. As my previous post estimates, a 5 m2 target should be detected under optimal conditions between 50-57 nmi. The SU-27 has an estimated forward RCS of 10-15 m2... So I do believe the detection range on it should be between 60-70 nmi, and not 48nmi. Mig-21 RCS is roughly 3 m2. So it should be detected around the mid-40s or so.

A 1983 defense case study prepared for the U.S. DoD, determined (utilizing the Radar Range equation; not a performance review) that the maximum detection range for the APG-65 (pre-cursor to the APG-73) against a "medium size target" (ie ~5 sm) to be about 45 nmi in look-up HPRF conditions. (implied 50% probability of detection or Pd, western norm in radar community) Above are the best known facts. One could use the radar range equation, plot the most likely values that lead to 45 nmi, and extrapolate the detection range against 1 sm and 15 sm targets. Best guess/assumption: APG-73 upgrade improves detection range between 10-25%, putting its detection range (HPRF / Look-Up / Head-On / 50% Pd / ~5 sm target) between 50-57 nmi. Reference: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a142071.pdf

awwwww yeeeaahhhh

Just bc something hypothetically could, doesn't mean it does. The angular resolution of the CIT array and RWR is not similar, or especially fine. While CIT has range, RWR tracks do not. So you can only corelate the two in azimuth. With a bit of critical thought, you would realize that nearby friendlies down the same clock position (again the azimuth resolution would come down to the lowest common denominator; the RWRs poor angular resolution) as a threat, would hide said threats emissions.. Likely response: But the enemies radar is different, only apply this filter to friendly type radars. (ex. never hide a 29 spike) My counter response: You dont know the mis-ID percentage of a real RWR. Part of a pilots bogey -> Bandit ROE cert, includes IFF, RWR, NCTR, "red force line", datalink, off-board calls, etc. Keeping CIT and RWR separate ensures a higher level of certainty that the potential threat is not a friendly. The RWR priority filter doesn't hide emitters. It alters the ranking of RWR tracks. Hypothetically, IFF correlation with RWR could work if all of the criteria could be met: RWR had high angular resolution (~1 degree) CIT had high angular resolution (~1 degree) RWR correct signal identification > 99% BLUFOR and REDFOR didn't have overlapping Radar parameters CIT cannot be spoofed or malfunctioning The enemy could never know of this filter, as they could take advantage of it.

He's not talking about real IFF.. He's saying that the RWR shouldn't be able to say: 'This APG-73 is friendly; so I wont show it, and that APG-73 is enemy so I will display it' The RWR can ID the radar.. It cannot identify if the person working the radar is a nice guy who wont hurt you.

The HMD TD box should have an arrow indicating that the HMD TD box is outside the FOV.. That would fix the ambiguity between the two TD boxes.

as someone who uses an ultrawide display with TrackIR, i feel your pain. For those who dont understand the problem Normal TrackIR usage: Turn head far enough so you can see what you need to at the right side of the display. JHMCS is always centered TrackIR usage with JHMCS: turn head far enough to that what you want to lock centers in the display (for JHMCS) One of the benifits of multiple monitors or an ultrawide is that you can use a lower angular multiplier. Low TrackIR multiplier with JHMCS: turn head so far to the side in order to center target that your eyes cant see the center of the monitor. (ie you cant see the target or JHMCS FOV) If JHMCS could dynamically offset with head input, it could be made to follow your central vision. (ie if im using TrackIR, and I look right, offset JHMCS to right side of display)

good to know. though i have read that its .8 secs