AN/APG-63v3 and JHMCS?

[lunaticfringe]

No not as such, but you did argue that introducing them would be fine and that dealing with the disproportonate increase in capabilities the F-15C would gain against any other aircraft in the game could be solved simply by "applied doctrine and scenario design".

 

I did no such thing; the APG-63PSP (which is what the F-15C DCS has been claimed to be, but is not even *close* to representing) and APG-63V1 are not AESA and do not involve compatibility with AIM-9X. While the V1 is compatible with both the latter and the JHMCS, stating that that I argued for their introduction when I did no such thing is rather ridiculous, don't you think?

 

ED can make the Eagle what it's supposed to be with the full PSP suite to match up with the AMRAAM compatibility, get out of the way, and I'd be pleased as punch.

[USARStarkey]

The APG-63 in game is definnately underperforming, but the Flankers radar is overperforming by alot as well. The N001 can track a 1m^2 target head on at 43nm but in game it can find targets at ranges of 62nm. In fact, upon doing further testing, I am beginning to suspect that in terms of power and range etc, the in game APG 63 and N001 are identical.

[Frostie]

The APG-63 in game is definnately underperforming, but the Flankers radar is overperforming by alot as well. The N001 can track a 1m^2 target head on at 43nm but in game it can find targets at ranges of 62nm. In fact, upon doing further testing, I am beginning to suspect that in terms of power and range etc, the in game APG 63 and N001 are identical.

And what RCS does an F-15 or Su27 have, certainly larger than 1m2, you seem to have a lot of opinions to give on what is under performing and what is over performing, but with very little knowledge to show for it.

[Alfa]

I did no such thing; the APG-63PSP (which is what the F-15C DCS has been claimed to be, but is not even *close* to representing) and APG-63V1 are not AESA and do not involve compatibility with AIM-9X. While the V1 is compatible with both the latter and the JHMCS, stating that that I argued for their introduction when I did no such thing is rather ridiculous, don't you think?

 

lunaticfringe - read the damn thread from the start!

 

According to the unofficial ED schedule thread, JHMCS for the F-15C is under consideration. If this actually makes it in along with the AIM-9X, wouldn't that be rather overpowered?

 

As a side note, might we see the AN/APG-63v3 AESA in the future? I can help but feel that such a setup would be unfair, even against an Su-27SM (provided they actually make the AMRAAM effective).

 

I agreed with the thread-starter that introduction of such features for the F-15 would needlessly "un-balance" capabilities as compared with all other FC3 aircraft - then you jumped in and told me to quit calling it unbalance and accusing me of seeking "false equivalence" - how am I to interpret that other than supporting their introduction?

[lunaticfringe]

lunaticfringe - read the damn thread from the start!

 

I did. And I qualified my statements FROM THE START OF THEM.

[GGTharos]

The much older APG-59 with 32" dish (the 63 has a 36" dish) was capable of tracking a MiG-21 (Have Doughnut actually :) ) at 50nm in look-down conditions (during take-off), and very reliably at 45nm. Tracking. Draw your own conclusions about APG-63 from that if you like.

 

PS: There's a claim that's very difficult to confirm, that the APG-63 has a 56nm range vs a 1m^2 target. a V2/3 supposedly has 2-3 times that particular range. This should also help put things into perspective. All fighters in DCS are modeled as 5m^2 IIRC.

 

And what RCS does an F-15 or Su27 have, certainly larger than 1m2, you seem to have a lot of opinions to give on what is under performing and what is over performing, but with very little knowledge to show for it.

Edited June 24, 2014 by GGTharos

[USARStarkey]

And what RCS does an F-15 or Su27 have, certainly larger than 1m2, you seem to have a lot of opinions to give on what is under performing and what is over performing, but with very little knowledge to show for it.

 

Im not sure the snide remark was necessary. perhaps you should grow up a tad.

 

Obviously they dont have 1m^2 RCS. My main thing is that in game right now, if you fly head on at each other, you will see each other at exactly the same distance. That would not be the case in real life.

[Snoopy]

It's a sim. Balancing sides artificially shouldn't be a goal.

 

Also it's not unbalanced given that the mission designer chooses what goes into the mission and what the mission is composed of.

 

Exactly. It's a Combat sim, I'm sorry but Combat isn't fair and thus balancing shouldn't be the goal. Realistic systems, as much as possible, should be the goal.

[karambiatos]

Im not sure the snide remark was necessary. perhaps you should grow up a tad.

 

Obviously they dont have 1m^2 RCS. My main thing is that in game right now, if you fly head on at each other, you will see each other at exactly the same distance. That would not be the case in real life.

Why is that?

[lunaticfringe]

Educate yourself instead of expecting others to do it for you.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Airborne-Radar-Aerospace-Systems/dp/1891121014

[Ktulu2]

God that book is expensive O.O

[Grim_Smiles]

God that book is expensive O.O

 

In terms of engineering textbooks that's actually not a bad price, considering some of the ones I've had to purchase in the past.

[lunaticfringe]

If you've seen the size of it and what it includes, it's worth more. But, it's becoming a hallmark of Western Civilization, that we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[USARStarkey]

Why is that?

 

Why is what precisely?

 

The Radars having the same range? Please. They are two completely different radars. It is extremely unlikely that they both have EXACTLY the same detection range against the same target. Especially since if you go and look it up, they have different ranges.... the N001 is 43nm vs 1m^2 and the APG-63v1 is 56nm

Edited June 24, 2014 by USARStarkey

[USARStarkey]

Educate yourself instead of expecting others to do it for you.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Airborne-Radar-Aerospace-Systems/dp/1891121014

 

Yep

Edited June 25, 2014 by USARStarkey

[lunaticfringe]

I dont recall asking anyone to do anything for me. Nor was I talking to you.

 

That was stated to karambiatos. Check your fire or learn how to read in context of a group conversation.

[USARStarkey]

That was stated to karambiatos. Check your fire or learn how to read in context of a group conversation.

 

I apologize. I jumped to conclusions. I will delete me previous post. Excuse my defensiveness.

[lunaticfringe]

Understandable given the earlier context of how the conversation was driving.

[GGTharos]

So, I fired up the 2-way radar range equation, gathered what there is 'out there for data' and then made up the rest of the parameters that I believe are somewhat reasonable values for the 'known' 56nm@1m^2 range, and the graph comes out like the included attachment.

 

Comparing to the APG-59, I not only have to reduce the dish size, I have to reduce sensitivity as well (ie. increase self-noise) for the APG-59 to get the ranges to match.

 

Again, this is all somewhat inexact, but the math should be in the right ball-park IF the available figures are correct.

 

In addition, APG-63 look-down vs. Look-up range shouldn't really vary a whole lot, according to things certain people in the know have said. This would appear to be corroborated by other modern radars exhibiting similar behavior (RDI v RDM).

[USARStarkey]

So I know this is very general, but if DCS uses 5m^2 then I should be able to track targets at 85nm if I am reading this right. Right now, if you go in game, both the N001 and the APG63 will pick up their first target at 62nm all things being the same. Why would ED choose to do it this way? Is the information classified for the early model 63 and N001? This seems like a awfully cheesy solution.

[GGTharos]

Yes, the information is classified. As for the RCS of the actual aircraft, that is classified also - we know the RCS of only a few planes.

 

For the record, I won't be tolerating any bashing of ED's radar modeling decisions. The devs do their best and in particular within the context of classified information, as well as very limited time for addressing any single subject.

Edited June 25, 2014 by GGTharos

[USARStarkey]

Yes, the information is classified. As for the RCS of the actual aircraft, that is classified also - we know the RCS of only a few planes.

 

Given that, giving them both the same range is a little bit more reasonable. However, is there enough info to give the radars a realistic relative difference in performance? It seems quite silly that an airplane known for its radar is equaled in this regard by a plane it is known not having as good a radar. Is the data on the N001 also classified? Research I've done into other things aside from planes has shown me that alot of Russian data tends to be a less closely guarded secret, at least for things from the 80-90's.

 

I have a high regard for ED. But I have a right to give my opinion on something. Like i said, if it is classified, than that is more understandable. I cant help but feel though that there should be SOME difference in performance.

Edited June 25, 2014 by USARStarkey

[GGTharos]

Let's just say that finding good data is always difficult. Max range alone is neat and all, but there are other details also.

 

For example, the Russian radars seem to have very short look-down and MPRF range. I'm told by people in the industry that this is simply not the case for western radars.

 

Can it be conclusively proven? Most of the time, no, because you won't find anything but hints regarding certain processing methods ... but nothing that says 'this radar has this much HPRF range, that radar has that much HPRF range'.

 

 

(PS: For those of you who may have thought about this - you may recall a certain British pilot saying he could see an F-22, but not lock it. According to this APG-63 calculation, you won't be locking up a 22 if it's further than 5-7nm. The exact range, I don't know. Case in point though, you fly against a 22 without flying a 22, you're dead. Doesn't matter which Eagle/Flanker you're flying, how many IRSTs you've mounted, or how many L-Band conformals you attached.)

Edited June 25, 2014 by GGTharos

[USARStarkey]

Let's just say that finding good data is always difficult. Max range alone is neat and all, but there are other details also.

 

For example, the Russian radars seem to have very short look-down and MPRF range. I'm told by people in the industry that this is simply not the case for western radars.

 

Can it be conclusively proven? Most of the time, no, because you won't find anything but hints regarding certain processing methods ... but nothing that says 'this radar has this much HPRF range, that radar has that much HPRF range'.

 

Yes this seems to be the wall I am running into with my own research on this.

I was hoping that is was just because I hadn't delved deep enough or looked in the right places.

 

Are the bits regarding MPRF etc modeled? Based on what you said I would assume no but asking just in case.

 

Lastly, is there by chance a ED chart for the radars floating around out there for the in game data?

[TAW_Blaze]

Excuse me for being a bit off topic, there's something that's been bugging my mind for a while now:

 

What exactly HI and MED symbols mean in PRF selection? Now the reason I'm asking because, from the radar equation, the higher the PRF the lower the Rmax. While in fact in DCS HI provides the longer detection range of the two. A logical answer could be that they refer to detection ranges, but I'm doubtful. Anyone cares to enlighten me? Thanks!