My 530's seem to have poor range.

[TheJay15]

So I have been playing the stock missions which come with the Mirage and I have noticed that my 530's seem to struggle in the range department compared to what I have seen on YouTube. I theorize that this may be due to the general low altitude nature of most of the missions but It always seems like people on the interwebs are getting rMax of something like 15nmi even at low alt whereas on the deck I am getting rMax of around 7nmi.

 

Obviously I am using the RAZBAM missiles...

 

Maybe I am just paranoid and need to climb more.

 

edit: I have also noticed that my radar does not seem to detect targets very well at all. I am aware that there are issues with losing locks but does that include targets not appearing on the radar at all? Seems the worst over water. I know that radars have issues looking down into water. Is that what is causing my problem?

Edited June 18, 2016 by TheJay15

[Zeus67]

So I have been playing the stock missions which come with the Mirage and I have noticed that my 530's seem to struggle in the range department compared to what I have seen on YouTube. I theorize that this may be due to the general low altitude nature of most of the missions but It always seems like people on the interwebs are getting rMax of something like 15nmi even at low alt whereas on the deck I am getting rMax of around 7nmi.

 

Obviously I am using the RAZBAM missiles...

 

Maybe I am just paranoid and need to climb more.

 

530Ds max range is a function of: launch altitude + target aspect + launch aircraft velocity.

 

The higher you fly, the more range you have. But basically below 20,000 feet, the max range you have is about 12 to 14 nmiles. Above those ranges the probability of interception are really slim.

 

AI aircraft tend to do a cute maneuver: a S. They turn around fly away for you for a couple of seconds and then return to face you. That maneuver is more than enough to increase the range and sometimes the missile lose energy just when it is about to intercept.

 

Your best bet is to wait for the TIR (SHOOT) signal.

 

edit: I have also noticed that my radar does not seem to detect targets very well at all. I am aware that there are issues with losing locks but does that include targets not appearing on the radar at all? Seems the worst over water. I know that radars have issues looking down into water. Is that what is causing my problem?

What mode are you? Remember that targets can fly under and over the search cone. If you get too close to them try moving the antenna up or down.

[TheJay15]

It may be that the AI aircraft are flying very slowly as I have boticed that they tend to fly around at high AoA a lot of the time.

 

My problem isn't getting too close, it's that the aircraft don't seem to show up on radar until they are around 15nmi even if I set my scan range to 100nmi and have a search cone going from -15ft to 57ft. I usually just keep my radar in the standard search mode.

[Pickle]

TheJay15, antenna elevation is in thousands of feet. Anything >0 is wasted because it's looking into the ground. Your example would be, at that specific range, ground level up to 57000 feet. The maximum range for the onboard radar is 80 miles; further ranges are for use with GCI.

[TheJay15]

Yes I did intend to put a thousand after those numbers and I am aware what they represent. I was however unaware that the radar only had an 80nmi range.

 

Still this does not explain why targets do not seem to appear on my radar until they are very close. Far closer than 80nmi.

[nomdeplume]

80 nm is like the best possible range in optimal circumstances against a high-RCS target. Around 30-35 is more realistic for fighter-sized targets, especially if you're using wide-area scan patterns (120°, 4-bar), which spread the radar's energy over a large volume of space.

 

Also you mentioned you "have a search cone going from -15ft to 57ft", but it doesn't really make sense to specify the dimensions for a "cone" like this. Where along the cone are you getting that kind of coverage? Presumably only at fairly long distances, where the radar return from a contact is quite weak.

 

You might be able to detect contacts at longer ranges using the 1-bar scan pattern, but that's going to make the vertical coverage area very small indeed - so really only works well if you already know the target's altitude and position (i.e. you're being directed by AWACS/GCI). I also haven't tested how much of a difference it actually makes in the sim.

 

It might be a good idea to go into the mission editor and make a simple air-start scenario with some aircraft (perhaps friendlies so they just ignore you) at various known distances and altitudes, and just practice detecting them. That might give you a better feel for what the radar is actually capable of, and just how enormous your radar's "blind spots" are, especially as the range decreases.

[gavagai]

Question about what it says in the manual (and this seems to be on topic):

 

"The manufacturers claim that RDI will detect 90% of 5m^2 fighter-sized targets out to 66nmi (122km) in clear air using a four-bar search pattern over 120 degrees in azimuth, and 60 nmi (111km) with a single-bar pattern over 30 degrees in azimuth, dropping to 50 nmi (93km) in pulse-Doppler look-down mode."

 

Why would the detection range decrease using a smaller horizontal and vertical azimuth?

[Azrayen]

Good question; perhaps a typo? Sounds illogical indeed to me too.

[TheJay15]

80 nm is like the best possible range in optimal circumstances against a high-RCS target. Around 30-35 is more realistic for fighter-sized targets, especially if you're using wide-area scan patterns (120°, 4-bar), which spread the radar's energy over a large volume of space.

 

That might explain why I had trouble finding the F-16s as I had a very large scan zone and they have a very small cross section head on.

 

Also you mentioned you "have a search cone going from -15ft to 57ft", but it doesn't really make sense to specify the dimensions for a "cone" like this. Where along the cone are you getting that kind of coverage? Presumably only at fairly long distances, where the radar return from a contact is quite weak.

 

Yes that was when I was scanning a very large area at somewhere between 80 and 100 nmi.

[mattebubben]

That might explain why I had trouble finding the F-16s as I had a very large scan zone and they have a very small cross section head on.

 

 

 

Yes that was when I was scanning a very large area at somewhere between 80 and 100 nmi.

 

And at that point only the edges of your cone is scanning those altitudes.

 

so at closer ranges you really need to play around with the Radar Elevation to make sure you see everything within range.

Edited June 18, 2016 by mattebubben

[TheJay15]

Ok so I did mess around with this in the mission editor. I put a M-2000C and a C-17 around 80nmi away from me and tested the radar in different search zones. I was able to see the C-17 at around 70nmi and the Mirage at around 50nmi or so. Interestingly it seems as though switching back to a large search pattern did not cause me to lose either of the targets but that may have been due to them being closer when I switched.

[jojo]

While it's true smaller scan zone should slightly increase detection range, I'm not sure it's modeled in DCS.

[TheJay15]

Yeah after further testing it doesnt seem to alter the detection range much which is why the fact that I have trouble seeing the f-16s in the intercept the vipers misson bugs me so much.

[stickz]

The manufacturers claim that RDI will detect 90% of 5m^2 fighter-sized targets out to 66nmi (122km) in clear air using a four-bar search pattern over 120 degrees in azimuth, and 60 nmi (111km) with a single-bar pattern over 30 degrees in azimuth, dropping to 50 nmi (93km) in pulse-Doppler look-down mode." Why would the detection range decrease using a smaller horizontal and vertical azimuth? Actually the manufacturer is not strictly saying the detection range is less, they mean the odds of you detecting the target is reduced (very fractionally). And yes I realise it comes down to a similar thing, its just the perspective put on it. In principle it should not, a 30deg single bar scan would pass over the target 16 times to the 4 bar scan once (assuming constant scan rate), so the odds would be much greater of breaking the target from noise floor. Especially if specifying a moving target and platform (ie reflection power varying). If target position is known then it will not matter which scan pattern you use provided a bar of the 4 bar scan sweeps out the same area of sky as a single bar scan sweeping over target, but this depends on how the manufacturer sets up the mechanics of the antenna scan. However, at extreme range, the target needs to be pretty well central in the 3dB beam width for max power to be reflected back to the receiver. As the target range increases so the adjacent scan pattern beams overlap. So your odds of detecting a target can be marginally increased. A target right on the extreme edge of the beam bandwidth may be seen 'better' by the adjacent scan. You are seeing an example of manufacturer specmanship. Often these values are quoted by systems engineers maths ( especially modern stuff), backed up by flying a target at a known height and path through a range, whilst you try to detect it. With a single bar at extreme range you have to be pointing antenna boresight right into it, a multi bar may see it less precisely aimed. Sorry if I aint described this very well, I am a very long in the tooth radar engineer.

[jojo]

Why would the detection range decrease using a smaller horizontal and vertical azimuth?

 

It's probably a mistake or mistyping. It's the contrary.

At least for the RDM Thomson claimed the longer range in 1 line scan.

[PiedDroit]

It's probably a mistake or mistyping. It's the contrary.

At least for the RDM Thomson claimed the longer range in 1 line scan.

It makes more sense indeed, faster/shorter scan should have better range as the target is painted more often, so it gets easier to track.

[TheJay15]

Yeah I can't really see too much of a discernible difference in detection range by altering the lines or azimuth. I did actually compare the detection range to the eagle and it seems like the range for the eagle is fairly similar to that of the mirage. In that case how powerful is the 15s radar in comparison to the 2000s?

 

On a side note there was an above post which used a radar crossection of 5m^2. What is the crossection of an f-16?

 

Edit: I googled a bit and it seems that the f-16 and mirage have around 1-2m^2.

Edited June 19, 2016 by TheJay15

[jojo]

It depends on load out. But I think it would be higher than that.

Radar manufacturer usually use 3 or 5m² as reference RCS for a reason :smilewink:

[TheJay15]

Yeah the numbers varied as I suppose the Air Force doesnt exactly tell every one the RCS on its jets. I think that the small CS was the result of some of the ecm stuff that the C and AM F-16s can carry.

[Azrayen]

On a side note there was an above post which used a radar crossection of 5m^2. What is the crossection of an f-16?

 

Edit: I googled a bit and it seems that the f-16 and mirage have around 1-2m^2.

 

In DCS:

- F-16: 4m²

- M-2000C: 2.5m²

- M-2000-5: 5m²

 

(yes, it's not logical)