Upcoming RDI Radar changes

[SilentSierra]

I know, but for me this version looks simple, I expected more stuffs, I didn't know the details of the aircraft before the purchase.

[myHelljumper]

I know, but for me this version looks simple, I expected more stuffs, I didn't know the details of the aircraft before the purchase.

 

The Mirage 2000C is an interceptor with secondary A-G capabilities, not a multi-role fighter like a F-16 , so simpler, but not simple ;).

 

And in this role it was a big competitor to the F-16 that was exported at the time and it was proposed with options like TGP like pods. If it was inferior we wouldn't have sold them to 9 countries over the F-16 :)

Edited May 16, 2017 by myHelljumper

[Gliptal]

Also keep in mind the F-16 is one of the most iterated aircrafts ever made, and had an export and media success like no aircraft ever had (and probably will have in the future).

[jaguara5]

As we know, the Mirage 2000 will at some point benefit from ED's AG

code developed for the Hornet. Will it be also benefit from the respective - advanced - AA code?

[shab249]

The Mirage 2000C is an interceptor with secondary A-G capabilities, not a multi-role fighter like a F-16 , so simpler, but not simple ;).

 

And in this role it was a big competitor to the F-16 that was exported at the time and it was proposed with options like TGP like pods. If it was inferior we wouldn't have sold them to 9 countries over the F-16 :)

 

9 vs 27 is not a lot

Maybe those countries already had French weapons or better diplomatic contact with them but it is a bit inferior even to the F16A's

[jojo]

9 vs 27 is not a lot

Maybe those countries already had French weapons or better diplomatic contact with them but it is a bit inferior even to the F16A's

 

The F-16A has more AG weapons options, but it doesn't come close to the Mirage 2000C RDI as AA fighter/ interceptor.

Most F-16A lacked BVR weapons and IFF interrogator. And Mirage has better integrated ECM equipment.

 

Export Mirage 2000E still had Super 530D, and they had targeting pod and LGB option which wasn't usual on F-16A at the time.

 

Finally F-16 sales were not purely on technical considerations either.

 

But I agree that the later F-16C is really more versatile. We had to wait Mirage 2000-5mk2/-9 to catch up.

Edited August 16, 2017 by jojo

[protea1]

GREAT NEWS!! and thanks!

[Beamscanner]

Somethings are not clear for me regarding PRF in the Mirage.

 

The manual states that Interleave (ENT) is Medium PRF, while the others High and Low are relevant surely Interleave is alternating between two PRFs eg. High and Low in this case and not using Medium at all or is it alternating between High/Medium like with FC aircraft and also in the same way that Interleave is stated High/Med in the F-15C 34-1-1 manual.

 

Plus I've noticed that there is no detection range difference on a tail chase between HFR (Hi), ENT (Int) and BFR (Low). High PRFs are used for Head on contacts but poor at tail on, this is represented well with FC aircraft where there is huge detection difference between Medium and High, Medium being the optimal choice also stated in the 34-1-1 manual.

But taking into account the relative performance in DCS of the APG-63 compared with the RDI in the head on aspect (about 75% power of the APG) with the Mirage it seems that using High against tail on gives a range similar to what you'd expect from 75% of the APG-63 in Medium and the High PRF detection in both the RDI and APG against tail on is quite close. So with this in mind surely tail on High PRF is over performing with the RDI.

 

Also to add to this, in the Head on aspect there is no detection range difference between High and Interleave inside the max usable range of ENT at 45nm. For example HFR sees an F-15 at 40nm but so does ENT. Now i'm in the opinion that this is the correct modelling. ILV alternates between two PRFs between bar sweeps so there should be no reduction in range as far as I can figure. But FC has a 25% reduction in ILV over High PRF I don't know why it is like this but surely some reason behind it.

 

I highly doubt the RDI uses LPRF in any air to air modes. LPRF waveforms have little to no ability to pick up targets in clutter because the spectral lines (created from pulse harmonics) make Doppler information ambiguous. (i.e. it cannot be used in look down/shoot down scenarios)

 

LPRF is good for ground mapping (RBM/DBS/SAR), because Sensitivity time control (STC) techniques can be used to suppress side-lobe clutter. This cannot be done in MPRF or HPRF because at these pulse rates the receiver will almost constantly have reflections returning to the receiver and lowering the sensitivity has a negative effect on long range returns. Using STC expands blind zones(eclipsing; because you cant receive a return while transmitting. More transmissions=more eclipsing), which MPRF and HPRF have many, while LPRF (because of their long recieve times) have few or no blind zones(less transmissions=less eclipsing).

 

Perhaps some confusion in translation from french to English when making the manual/module..

Edited August 24, 2017 by Beamscanner

[jojo]

Then look at your PCR panel the switch labelled: HFR/ - / BFR

 

HFR = Haute Fréquence de Récurence = HPRF

- = interleaved

BFR = Basse Fréquence de Récurence = LPRF

 

But yes, indeed BFR has poor look down and no shoot down capacity.

Anyway the Super 530D will only guide on HFR.

[GGTharos]

I highly doubt the RDI uses LPRF in any air to air modes. LPRF waveforms have little to no ability to pick up targets in clutter because the spectral lines (created from pulse harmonics) make Doppler information ambiguous. (i.e. it cannot be used in look down/shoot down scenarios)

 

The F-16 uses LPRF in A2A so other radars should be able to if desired.

[jojo]

Mirage 2000-5 RDY radar can use HPRF, MPRF and LPRF too.

[Beamscanner]

If LPRF is being used, you shouldn't see a clutter free display... This because ground clutter is only removed via doppler processing. Little to no doppler processing can be done with LPRF.

 

I think the problem here is the terminology. LPRF as a term in radar engineering may be different from its use in french pilot manuals. Thats why I think there could be a translation error.

 

Here is a good source on it. http://www.turma-aguia.com/davi/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_17.pdf

 

 

Jojo, I imagine the HPRF requirement for the Super-530D has to do with target illumination.

[GGTharos]

Looked pretty clutter-free to me :) You can use a bunch of techniques to deal with these things when you have a powerful enough radar processor involved, AFAIK.

[jojo]

Yes, good reading. So if you prefer BFR = MTI LPRF.

You may see targets, but you can't lock. Usually I dont bother to play with PRF. The only useful PRF is HFR.

[Xordus]

How this heck is this stuff not in yet?? How hard is it to add a BIT? Some things just aren't a priority....

 

This was posted 2 YEARS AGO

[Guest]

Push :)

[Fri13]

9 vs 27 is not a lot

Maybe those countries already had French weapons or better diplomatic contact with them but it is a bit inferior even to the F16A's

 

Or maybe the weapons manufacturers got to the minds and hearts of the leaders in those countries and sold F-16 to them regardless it was worse choice back then?

[Haukka81]

Bumb !

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KoN]

Is radar working . I never seem to get a good lock . I'm right on top of targets I just follow RWR GET a lock then it's gone . ...?. I can acually see me contacts by that point .

[ZHeN]

lol forget this thread :)

[jojo]

Is radar working . I never seem to get a good lock . I'm right on top of targets I just follow RWR GET a lock then it's gone . ...?. I can acually see me contacts by that point .

 

There is a bug with TWS if you use sectoral scan. (like 60 or 30 degrees).

It’s ok if you stay with 120 degrees scan.

If you want faster target update, you can scan 2 lines instead of 4.

[p1t1o]

I've been away a long time and the radar is still bugged?

 

I've got all of the respect and sympathy for developers in the world but its been a long time and this is supposed to be a serious, HiFi sim.

 

Is it just a case that "The M2000 modules is the "fun" one, not for frontline use."?

 

I am dissappoint.

 

***

 

tl;dr - work stopped or no?

[Kane]

There is a bug with TWS if you use sectoral scan. (like 60 or 30 degrees).

It’s ok if you stay with 120 degrees scan.

If you want faster target update, you can scan 2 lines instead of 4.

 

May i ask you for details? Was unable to find in the thread. So in 120 degree mode radar won`t lose lock, right?

[jojo]

May i ask you for details? Was unable to find in the thread. So in 120 degree mode radar won`t lose lock, right?

 

The bug in sectoral scan right now is that if you put your target 30 degrees to the left, the sectoral TWS will scan 30 degrees to the right, so it won’t update the track and will loose lock.

 

If you stay in 120 degrees scan, you can crank to the limit, the radar will sweep the full width (120 degrees).

 

You can still loose lock if the target beams you.

 

A 120 degrees scan in 2 lines will take roughly the same time as a 60 degrees scan on 4 lines.

The 4 lines will scan 7.5 degrees in elevation (because the lines overlap), but the 2 lines will still cover 6 degrees in elevation (no overlap), which isn’t that bad.

 

Scan rate is 100 degrees/ second, and you got it: the radar beam is 3 degrees.

[ZHeN]

May i ask you for details? Was unable to find in the thread. So in 120 degree mode radar won`t lose lock, right?

 

the bug report thread + video description:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=226513