Cepheus76

Okay, I'll try again. Thanks for the feedback!

Hello all, Until recently I could find TOOs for JDAMs using the radar, placing the cursor on top of a target, and then designating the target. The coordinates generated and sent to the JDAM were spot on and I enjoyed a high hit probability. However, when I tried the same procedure yesterday, after being away from DCS for a couple of weeks, I found that after designating the target with the radar, the coordinates previously generated when placing the cursor on the target are replaced by a new set, which is quite a bit off. Is this new behaviour intended or am I missing something else? Best regards, Cepheus Designating Ground Target Track Changes TOO Coordinates.trk

I just have a quick question regarding the Hornet's g limit: It seems to me that the 10 gs the aircraft can now sustain represent the airframe's ultimate loadfactor, leading to swift structural failure when exceeded. However, is there also a yield load simulated, i.e. structures remain permanently bent after the load is removed? I am thinking about important components like slats, flaps and their drives. Thanks for any insights, Cepheus

I know that you probably fell victim to some auto-correct function, but I just love the notion of having a trick-while-scam radar

Ah okay, thanks for clarifying where the issue is.

You introduce an interesting point, however, I found that I experience misses, unless I change the format. I am away from my computer now for a few days, but I will test then what coordinates are returned when designating a target first and then choosing precise and what the values will be for the same point when activating the precise option first.

When I want to target JDAMs and the like with the radar, I make sure that I activate the "precise" option for coordinates and also change the coordinates format to seconds and decimal seconds before using the radar. I then just drive the cursor in EXP3 over my target, designate with the SCS and get on the proper heading to drop. Actually, I configure the coordinates the same way when using the pod for targeting. Once I figured the above steps out I didn't experience that many misses with free fall ordnance (and JSOWs) Regards, Cepheus76

@WobblyFlops, The excerpt is only one example of how radar was used in Operation Desert Storm. In the book, the author describes a multitude of attacks, on structures and vehicles alike, were the targeting was done with the radar or were radar was used to at least find the target. But of course you are right when pointing out that doctrine might have changed in the 15 years between Desert Storm and 2007. Also, a desert environment may be indeed more radar friendly than the Fulda Gap. @Frederf is also right when pointing out that CCIP was used in the described attack for the delivery. Intersting enough, the author wrote a few times how he put the pipper on the TD-box in the HUD to deliver his bombs. Would be nice to know why CCIP was the preferred mode, could be unit SOPs or perhaps that mode is/ was just better in the F-16 or for free-fall ordnance. Last, the report referenced by @TLTeo has some very impressive radar screen shots, showing how much can be discerned. However, it is entirely possible, even most probable, that these screen shots are from some aircraft carrying a much larger radar dish than a Hornet or Viper.

I mentioned Rosenkranz's book already a few posts further above, however, I'd like to share this short excerpt how he used a/g radar for targeting: "Our target tonight is the Medina Republican Guard division. According to the map I was given by last night’s MPC team, the unit is situated forty miles west of Basrah on the north side of the Kuwaiti border. If everything goes as planned, we’ll fly north along the Kuwaiti border until we reach the IP. The IP-to-target run is forty miles, and the run-in heading is 093 degrees. Weasel’s plan is to have us roll in from the west, drop our six MK-82s, and egress east. It’s a clear night, so weather shouldn’t be a factor. As soon as I reach the IP, I turn right to a heading of 093, program steerpoint seven, and call up the air-to-ground master mode. The ground-map radar begins to sweep. As soon as the radar breaks out a good set of returns, I slew my cursors on top of them. While using EXP, DBS1, and DBS2, I begin a gradual descent. I expect a flurry of SAMs and AAA, but, so far, Iraq’s big guns are quiet. Approaching the target, I make one last check to ensure that my camera is on and that my master arm switch is in Arm. Everything’s set. At precisely five DME, I roll inverted and commence the attack. Rocketing toward the desert floor at 475 knots, I call up my CCIP pipper. My HUD is full of target returns, and I pickle all six bombs on the first pass. As soon as the bombs come off, I push my throttle to mil power and begin to climb. My RWR is quiet. Still no sign of AAA. Passing 10,000 feet, I roll to the left and wait for the bombs to detonate. Within seconds, six consecutive flashes appear below me. I roll back to the right as I continue to climb, hoping for some secondaries. Unfortunately, there are none. Passing 20,000 feet, I call up steerpoint eight and proceed toward the egress point. Before long, the entire formation passes over Bubiyan Island. After we fence out, Weasel calls for a fuel check and leads us back to Al Minhad. After I engage my autopilot, I reach into my G-suit pocket for a package of granola bars. Since late January, the after-attack snack has become a ritual for me. The stress of combat leaves me physically and mentally exhausted. Watching the stars from 39,000 feet with a granola bar in one hand and a cold bottle of water in the other is a great way to unwind. We touched down at Al Minhad at 22:22 and, after Weasel completed the debrief, the four of us headed back to the beer tent. I grabbed a soda from the bar and joined Opie, Ark, and Senseless at one of the tables. “How’s that LANTIRN shit going, Rosey?” Ark asked sarcastically. “It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.” “Do you like flying at night?” Senseless asked. “You may think I’m nuts, but I really do. Flying combat at night has its benefits: Iraqi gunners are usually trying to sleep; those that are awake can’t see us; we don’t fly at low altitude; and I enjoy the challenge of flying with a FLIR.” “Did you get any kills?” Senseless asked. “Who knows,” I answered dejectedly. “We were carrying MK-82s, and no one reported any secondaries after they came off. Unless you score a direct hit, you aren’t going to kill anything with a MK-82—especially from medium altitude. This war would be over a lot sooner if we could drop CBU-87, but Scotty says we need to save it for the ground war.” “He tells us the same thing,” Opie said leaning back and rolling his eyes. “Dropping dumb bombs from medium altitude is a waste of time, as far as I’m concerned.”" Of course, this were the early nineties and the author doesn't mention the mode he used, but it still documents the fact that radar was successfully used to engage targets and that apparently only the choice of munitions led to not achiving catastrophic kills. It appears that the electro-optical devices of today are superior to radar in the right conditions, but I wouldn't discount the latter just yet. It seems that there is a time and place for everything and you have to chose whatever is most suitable in a given situation. [Edit: I just reread my post and noted that he indeed mentioned the mode he used, it was the Ground Map mode] Reference Rosenkranz, K., (2002), Vipers in the Storm, p. 236 [Amazon Kindle Edition], The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc

WobblyFlops, Sinclair76, Thank you for your replies. However, I am still not entirely convinced that radar is not useful. For example, there might be a time critical high value target, which is mobile and its location is not exactly known. Something like it is only known that the 12. tank brigade is believed to form up for an attack between A-Town and B-Forrest, or something like that.

Düsseldorf METAR current at the time of this posting: EDDL 191050Z 16012KT 3000 -RADZ BR FEW002 BKN004 BKN009 14/14 Q1018 TEMPO RADZ I am interested to hear how you would execute an attack with LGBs in this conditions.

Of course, precipitation can cause radar attenuation, even to the point that the radar becomes useless. To be honest, I do not know to which degree radar is considered nowadays as a means for target acquisition, but Rosenkranz describes in his book "Vipers in the Storm" how radar was used for targeting during Operation Desert Storm. Sure, that was 30 years ago, yet I would be surprised if radar was dismissed entirely by the US Air Force and/ or other air forces today.

Also, rain and/ or cloudy skies should hamstring a targeting pod quite a bit, making radar a viable choice again.

Thank you for your quick and extensive reply. Actually, I think we're not that far off from our expectations as to what ED should strive for, but I always understood the statement "...to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft..." also to be a sales pitch. Thus I am always willing to accept that certain things in DCS may be close to, but not an exact replication of, real life items- especially classified ones. As a general observation, it is interesting, that there are seemingly always long discussions about sensor and weapon performance but never about other things like the ATC system. Personally, I can't wait for improvements in that arena, especially since I heard mentioning that the Marianas should also serve as a testbed for the new system. In any case, I better shut-up before getting (rightfully) charged with derailing the thread. Good hunting and happy landings

Since you're having these high standards regarding realism, I am sure you can present us with the data for take-off and landing performance, along with the m+b figures and of course the flightplans with fuel figures for, lets say, the last ten sorties you flew in DCS? You see, I was a pilot and planning a flight is something I actually enjoyed. It would greatly add to my immersion if I could plan the flights in DCS the same way I used to plan and had them planned for me in real life. Therefore, I would be greatful for any hints were to get flight planning documentation. Sarcasm aside, these discussions of what a radar should be capable of are starting to get tiresome at times and condescending posts like yours are really taking the fun out of getting deeper involved with the game.

I also would like to have that feature, however, when I looked through the Hornet's NATOPS manual, I didn't see any mentioning of it. Probably it wasn't implemented for whatever reason, which seems odd but yet that's the way it is.

Hello and welcome! There are already quite a few threads regarding the F18's radar performance ( mainly in the bug section of the forum), but if I recall correctly, you're mostly right with your assumption that the Hornet's radar is performing correctly. A quick remedy for losing LNS tracks so quickly is to adjust the time how long a track is retained to 8 or even better 16 seconds. You can do that on the radar's data sub-page using OSB 10. Also, I suggest that you watch Wag's excellent Hornet Radar tutorial on Youtube:

Actually, you can use our Hornet's AG Radar, especially when using the EXP 3 level, to target JDAMs in the TOO mode. However, before designating a target, you must ensure that the aircraft system will use precise coordinates. In addition, I also change the coordinates format from minutes and decimals to seconds and decimals, but I am not sure if that is really required. Of course, @Foka is right when writing that JDAMs are only for stationary targets.

I just had a look into the documentation of that other sim. You're right, the position of the stores config switch also has an effect on the pitch and roll rates too.

I am certain that the way the FLCS processes control stick inputs depend on gear and AAR door position. If I remember correctly, with gear down/ AAR door open, the pilot commands a certain pitch, but in normal cruise configuration stick position is interpreted as a demand for a certain g-load. The stores config switch, as far as I know, controls the maximum g's which are available, regardless of aircraft configuration.

I suggest to make the downwind leg a bit wider, i.e. fly a bit further away from the runway than normally. This way you have enough room to fly the base turn at the higher required approach speed and still use normal bank angles.

True, airframe damage isn't indicated by an annunciator light. Therefore, in real life, pilots check each others aircraft after an engagement/ after egressing from the target. Would be interesting to see if the AI could be programmed to do something like that, just sliding underneath your jet to the far side and back and then report, e.g. "There are shrapnell holes in your right wing", something like that. After all, the program knows what is wrong with the jet, it just needs to be verbalized. Of course, AI programming isn't easy and there are other things were the AI needs serious work, but hey, one can dream.

Fair enough I have to admit that I am only flying the modern American aircraft. In a WW2 fighter the only way to find out what is damaged will be through good aircraft systems knowledge, e.g. an uncontrolable rise in cylinder head temperature can be caused by either a loss of coolant or of engine oil.

Well, the aircraft should tell you what is wrong with it, e.g. through the annunciator panel in the F-14, F-16, and F-18. In addition, there's the PFLD in the F-16 and annunciations in the F-18's left DDI giving more details about a failure or fault. Having said that, I will now begin my old litany and ask again for better documentation for the various modules. In real aircraft manuals (at least for airliners anyway) you will always find in the system description the triggering conditions for the various warnings, cautions, and annunciations, so you can diagnose the problem. Once the fault is identified, you can troubleshoot it with the help of the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH). Therefore, it would be nice if ED would supply us with an abnormal/ emergency section in the aircraft documentation, along with a QRH tailored to the module. Of course, learning fault diagnosis and troubleshooting procedures is somewhat time consuming and may not be very appealing for the casual player. As for myself, to have these tools (along with performance charts etc.) at my hands would greatly add to the immersion and the overall game experience.

Like the bug reported in the thread linked below, entering the codes for the laser guided ordnance will change the data link channel. LGB Code Entry Affects DL Channel.trk AGM-65E Code Entry Affects DL Channel.trk