F-15C radar issue

[lo999]

I have a problem with the F-15C's radar. I've tried reading the manual but I still can't figure out why this is happening.

 

I created a mission in which I'm flying against two SU-27's. As soon as I'm in radar range, I switch to TWS, bug both of them and launch two AIM-120's against them. The first SU-27 always gets smoked, but the second one manages to evade the missile and go off my radar by diving low to the ground. Here's where the problem starts: as soon as he gets back up high in the sky, my radar won't be able to see him even if he's high enough off the ground and even if I'm at the same altitude, within radar range and directly on his six. One time I noticed that he would only appear at the bottom of my VSD if I pitched my nose up, but this isn't always the case. Any clues as to what's going on here?

Edited March 29, 2014 by lo999

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Yes you should adjust your radar elevation

[Pyroflash]

Yes, typically, go in STT when you get closer. It is VERY difficult to re-acquire targets inside 10 miles using LRS or TWS RADAR modes. It is probably better to use an Auto Acquisition (AAQ) mode such as auto guns, vertical scan (VS), or boresight. Even better, use your eyes. If your RADAR is really screwed, worst case scenario is you mad dog an AIM-120 at him (firing without a lock, provided he is within the ASE circle). It will still track inside of 10 miles or so, and should kill him regardless.

[TAW_Blaze]

RWS (LRS) can work inside 10 miles if you have a rough idea about his position but you need to handle your radar fast. Don't ever bother using TWS inside 10, it can take quite long to build the track and until then he won't show at all, just STT him from RWS. AAQ modes are usually just gambling if you don't have a visual. However if you do, you usually wanna use them.

 

You need to work on your antenna elavation, if you don't fully understand how it works you'll rely on luck finding anything rather than skill.

[GGTharos]

AAQ modes are the correct procedure.

 

AAQ modes are usually just gambling if you don't have a visual. However if you do' date=' you usually wanna use them.[/quote']

[TAW_Blaze]

AAQ modes are the correct procedure.

 

Swiveling around your nose having close to no idea where the guy is, praying that he'll get stuck in an AAQ mode is not really effective IMO. If you know a 10-20 degree azimuth and his altitude you can find him though. But that's far from not knowing where he is.

Edited April 13, 2014 by <Blaze>

[GGTharos]

In other words, you've already screwed up, so now you're panicking and using the least efficient procedure to find him by going LRS :)

 

Swiveling around your nose having close to no idea where the guy is' date=' praying that he'll get stuck in an AAQ mode is not really effective IMO. If you know a 10-20 degree azimuth and his altitude you can find him though. But that's far from not knowing where he is.[/quote']

[TAW_Blaze]

Actually no because TWS would be the least efficient :)

 

I still disagree with it, AAQ is less efficient if you don't know where he is, to be more specific, if you didn't even know he's there before either. Whether you found him or not before is a different argument.

[GGTharos]

You can disagree all you like, but it's still your own fault that you've screwed up and:

 

1) Have not noticed that aircraft sneaking in

2) Lost him though you had detected him further away (and then you continued to press in).

 

All of this is your own screw up, and whichever mode you choose to use now it's all down to luck.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Most of the time you "kind of" have visual contact, as you're looking at the radar box on the hud.

 

So, when he suddenly disappears and you're close, i personally just immidately switch to 3 or 4 , because he couldn't have gotten really far in those 1.5 seconds.

 

If i have absolutelyh NO idea where he is, i just run like hell if i can't find him with STT mode within 5 seconds.

[TAW_Blaze]

You can disagree all you like, but it's still your own fault that you've screwed up and:

 

1) Have not noticed that aircraft sneaking in

2) Lost him though you had detected him further away (and then you continued to press in).

 

All of this is your own screw up, and whichever mode you choose to use now it's all down to luck.

 

Again that's a different argument whether I see him before or not. We were debating what is better to find him under different conditions. If you have absolutely no idea where he is AAQ is downright gambling while standard radar modes are somewhat more reliable, albeit yes you should extend instead of trying to find him.

 

Most of the time you "kind of" have visual contact, as you're looking at the radar box on the hud.

 

So, when he suddenly disappears and you're close, i personally just immidately switch to 3 or 4 , because he couldn't have gotten really far in those 1.5 seconds.

 

If i have absolutelyh NO idea where he is, i just run like hell if i can't find him with STT mode within 5 seconds.

 

Yes, except the fact you can almost never afford to look at the TD box on your HUD the way you think.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

We are talking about losing a target that you are already tracking right ?

 

So, you know what direction he's going, you know how far he is, and you you are (usually) looking at the hud and the little square .

 

That is what this topic is about i think . He's losing his target because they go outside elevation range or whatever you call it.

 

So then you just use 3 or 4 quickly, your radar beam will just scan at the point you are looking at (and that is where he is) , so usually he gets picked up again , right ?

 

When using 3 i just roll 90 degrees and scan where he should be going, (if he's going sideways from me), and 4 if he's still coming at me.

 

Unless you are talking about when you are defending and he's outside your hud , but i don't think that was the topic

 

So, 1vs1 me faigt !

 

(just kidding :D )

Edited April 13, 2014 by Maximus_Lazarus

[lunaticfringe]

It is probably better to use an Auto Acquisition (AAQ) mode such as auto guns, vertical scan (VS), or boresight. Even better, use your eyes.

 

It would be inordinately useful to use autoguns if we actually *had* autoguns. Blaze's contention towards use of RWS up close plays to the nature of what we could do with actually having said mode with the expanded, steerable, flat search region, but in lieu of one you're generally better off with a collapsed scan zone and making sure you're in HPRF so you're not wasting cycle time in the bars.

 

That is to say, I get what he wants to do, it's just a shame that we can't actually do it the right way. One should aspire towards visual and an acquisition at ten miles, but the tools are there to be used in the event something goes wrong.

 

One thing that I really attempt to do that I find helps, so long as I can dedicate the mental space for it, is to rely on the heading tape. Losing a contact going for the notch at 45 degrees off the nose to my right on the scope when I'm at a heading of 090 means that, should I switch into visual, I can stick my nose in 135 and get my eyes out of the cockpit ahead of the frame and have a very good chance of picking him up with at least one of the two active sensors (APG and eyeball).

 

It's a small thing, and seems almost trivial writing it down, but when you're at ten miles and 1000 knots closure, simple, rather than slow, is smooth, and smooth is fast.

[GGTharos]

You don't need to use the heading tape at all. That's what contact flying is all about. You have to know how to relate position on the B-Scope to where something is outside your canopy.

 

As for steerable auto-guns etc, he's talking about not knowing there's a bandit there. That's just a ridiculous, serendipity-powered crap-shoot. It is purely down to luck and the correct answer is 'my wingman/another flight/awacs will clear my six'.

 

If we had SuperSearch that would be nice, but we don't - I'd imagine it might be a little more reliable than auto-guns, but auto-guns will do in a pinch when sanitizing.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Maddog some 120's in his general direction right after you lost him :)

[GGTharos]

'Using AAQ while looking outside the cockpit is gambling, while having my face full of VSD with a bandit inside 10nm is reliable, not like I need to look outside for a possible missile launch or anything'.

 

Yup.

 

Again that's a different argument whether I see him before or not. We were debating what is better to find him under different conditions. If you have absolutely no idea where he is AAQ is downright gambling while standard radar modes are somewhat more reliable' date=' albeit yes you should extend instead of trying to find him. [/quote']

[TAW_Blaze]

You still don't understand it, if I'm in WVR, sure I'll go AAQ. To be specific, I'll be visaully looking with an AAQ on. 10 miles ain't anywhere near WVR, you can sometimes see an F-15 from 7 miles fully zoomed in but that's not something you'd spot unless you know he's exactly there. I didn't say RWS is reliable around 10 miles, I said it's more reliable outside WVR than swiveling around with an AAQ, given the fact you don't have accurate information where the guy is.

 

Anyway done with this argument since you can't step out of the 'I present the air force solution' which is overall right but we're not arguing about a mistake of SA or running away when in doubt. No offense though.

Edited April 13, 2014 by <Blaze>

[lunaticfringe]

You don't need to use the heading tape at all. That's what contact flying is all about. You have to know how to relate position on the B-Scope to where something is outside your canopy.

 

Sure. And half of the equation of contact flying is the neurological interface between internal balance from the ears and the eyeball. We don't have the first part of the equation. It's incredibly easy sitting at a screen, relying on a TIR with a false ratio of head position to "world" position to overshoot, or undershoot, a region of airspace when making a turn. Throw the effect of z-axis movement and visual field zoom on the apparent FoV relative to the cockpit contact aids, and you're losing your frame of reference at the one moment you need it most.

 

A simple glance at the tape insures no under/overshoot, and places the bandit in a controlled region of airspace to search is the same method already being discussed; it's simply adding a layer of greater reliability for where we're shortchanged by the lack of physical input.

 

As for steerable auto-guns etc, he's talking about not knowing there's a bandit there.

 

OP is most certainly not; he knows where the guy is, he saw him on his scope to begin with when he took the shot, and he knows he broke low and the general vicinity of where he went. He simply doesn't know how to get the radar to reacquire the opponent in time. If the guy was coming in totally undetected, that would be one thing. This is knowing he's there and not being able to reacquire him when he turns back in.

 

If we had SuperSearch that would be nice, but we don't - I'd imagine it might be a little more reliable than auto-guns, but auto-guns will do in a pinch when sanitizing.

 

Autoguns is the closure mode du jour for a reason, because of it's flexibility. Having to go essentially nose on against a guy who may already be facing you, and shooting, to detect him isn't as useful as being able to look down with the microwave oven, pick him up, and already be in a useful aspect for lag or escape.

 

Would I like SS? Sure. I'd like AG more, because I can at least fake the resulting impact of SS through Visual/FLOOD. I can fake half AG, too, but I've still got to center the TD on him and peg a lock in a moment I'm short on time. /shrug