Air defence Radar Limits

[Buzpilot]

If Air defence, like Tunguska will be able to shoot down missiles, I think it's only fair if we have realistic Radar limits.

Today DCS radar limit seem to be like a cake shaped cylinder, with a small hole in center of it.

Is it too difficult to make search radars having realistic beams?

 

This is from a Tunguska at the angle I lost search radar , on a A-10C at +13,000 feet.

 

 

 

And here's how close to center the radar blip came, just before I lost it.

 

 

Here's a example of how a modern anti air radar profile looks like, probably better than the flat looks of Tunguska radar, but a good example.

Edit; But I'm not sure now, this example was from a 3d radar.

 

Tunguska Radar limit.trk

Edited May 8, 2014 by Buzpilot

[whiteladder]

"Today DCS radar limit seem to be like a cake shaped dome, with a small hole in center of it."

 

 

 

For a 2d search radar, that`s pretty much what you would expect from the Radar coverage.

Edited May 8, 2014 by whiteladder

[Buzpilot]

"Today DCS radar limit seem to be like a cake shaped dome, with a small hole in center of it."

 

 

 

For a 2d search radar, that`s pretty much what you would expect from the Radar coverage.

 

So you think it's normal for a search radar to almost look up vertical too? ( I think you confuse 2d vs 3d radars, that can look vertical too.)

Must be a cake thats sunk really thin in the middle then.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Buzpilot

[whiteladder]

So you think it's normal for a search radar to almost look up vertical too?

Must be a cake thats sunk really thin in the middle then.

 

Clearly the radar modelling for all of the ground unit is basic, with all the manual tasks of operating the radar missing. Having said that the search radar for the real Tunguska has selectable elevation coverage: 0 to 60 degrees, 40 to 80 degrees 0 to 30 degree. So yes it would be able to look within 10 degrees of vertical with the appropriate elevation coverage selected.

 

"( I think you confuse 2d vs 3d radars, that can look vertical too.)"

 

Having worked at the Royal Air Forces Signal Engineering establishment I have a fairly good idea how Radars work. Most people think that the elevation coverage of a radar involves the antenna being scanned in the vertical axis ( either mechanically or electronically by Phase). Many 2d search radars are able to change the elevation coverage by either having the signal horn in front of the radar movable or using movable spoilers on the antenna face or multiple feeds. I suspect the real system uses a movable signal horn.

Edited May 9, 2014 by whiteladder

[pepin1234]

well is complicated... The CA is not a mature ground Forces Simulator. Anyway I dont know if tunguska have 3d Radar for TRK.

 

For example. We Need the Option to Switch off the SR Radar of the tunguska when we get the Radar data of the Sborka (useless in game right now). This could be really deadly and stealthy

 

will be nice simulate a Command control like a module or add-on for CA. I think the big Problem here is the sychronization of the Radar info in a big area with a high number of SAM Units.

 

ED should simplify this procedure of a Command control Post. I find that really hard to do like a single unit Operator.

I really hate the F-10 view when I am in a dificult situation in CA

[fjacobsen]

Problem with CA is that it reveals some of the shortcommings of DCS.

 

But to be honest such shortcommings are the product of compromises that has to be made.

 

I´m sure that if You want all aspects to be realistc, then You would not like to use DCS, since FPS would plummet to single digit numbers.

 

I think the compromises that has been made, especially for something like radrs are acceptable.

 

While CA very much converts DCS into a first person shooter, this has never been the main scope of CA.

 

CA is mainly buld to be used as a Battle commander using the F10 map options.

[Looney]

I'm not getting the problem. The tunguska search radar only gives bearing and range, the tracking radar then slews until it receives a return and from that azimuth, gives you better range and via triangulation, height. These are fed to the computer which gives tracking and lead information. The search radar cannot give you height in its simplest form.

 

I concur with the others stating CA is a bit in its infancy, there's a lot more to flesh out. I also would like to see a basic command/control of SAM units where radar and contact data can be shared so that not every tunguska has to have its lights on all the time :)

[Buzpilot]

Clearly the radar modelling for all of the ground unit is basic, with all the manual tasks of operating the radar missing. Having said that the search radar for the real Tunguska has selectable elevation coverage: 0 to 60 degrees, 40 to 80 degrees 0 to 30 degree. So yes it would be able to look within 10 degrees of vertical with the appropriate elevation coverage selected.

 

"( I think you confuse 2d vs 3d radars, that can look vertical too.)"

 

Having worked at the Royal Air Forces Signal Engineering establishment I have a fairly good idea how Radars work. Most people think that the elevation coverage of a radar involves the antenna being scanned in the vertical axis ( either mechanically or electronically by Phase). Many 2d search radars are able to change the elevation coverage by either having the signal horn in front of the radar movable or using movable spoilers on the antenna face or multiple feeds. I suspect the real system uses a movable signal horn.

 

Thanks, this explain a lot. I only asumed this search radar had a very flat search beam, by the look of it.

I guess it's a mainly LGBU workout then.:music_whistling:

Edited May 9, 2014 by Buzpilot