SAR High Res imaging Quality on the An/APg73 Phase 2 Radar

[Kev2go]

The F/A18C ED is modelling has this radar. whilst there is a An/apg73 radar thread this is to discuss and possibility how ED how realistically woud be modelled based on what the Phase 2 Upgrades offered. Also to try to discern how good the capabilities of the phase w are for air to ground modes.

 

SAR high resolution mapping within the an/apg73 phase 2 based on the underlying technology used for for SAR within the F15E's An/APg70 radar. Ratheyons manufacture claims the imaging quality is comparable to that of the F15E. but before dismissing them as just claims lets look at some exampls.

 

 

 

SAR/GMT technology was applied to AN/AGP70/ 73 / and 76 Radars

 

AN/APg76 radar. It was proposed for the S3 viking, but ultimately it was adopted and used in upgraded ISreali F4E phantoms which were delivered by 1992.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image from an F15B ground attack test bed with a modified APG63 PSP radar with SAR.

 

 

 

 

 

From JSF powerpoint ( uncertain which legacy radar its being compared to)

 

 

 

 

 

 

APG73 Phase 2

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Kev2go

[Cann0nF0dd3r]

Probably not initially for the EA release would be my guess.

[Kev2go]

Probably not initially for the EA release would be my guess.

 

yes I am aware its not going to be ready for Early access, however i just started this thread to sort to try to discuss its capabilities and speculate how it will be simulated In game when it does become available. Perhaps this will also be a way of discussing new development specific topics for the A/G aspect developments of the Hornet.

[Revelation]

A couple of points to add:

 

SAR imaging has a "GMT mode," I haven't seen an instance of this depicted anywhere so I don't know how it compares to regular GMT mode.

 

I once read that an F-15E pilot could see the spinning radar dish on a SAM via SAR imaging from his radar.

 

 

One point to keep in mind is that the APG-73 was capable of Hi-Res imaging, though the hardware in the cockpit was only capable of Med-Res imaging. I haven't found anything to the contrary in all of my searches. There's actually a dedicated Data Pod to transmit Hi-Res imaging.

 

 

Here's an illustrated example of SAR imaging.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Revelation

[Emmy]

At what distance(s) are pilots able to resolve individual vehicles and tracks in the mud?

[Revelation]

At what distance(s) are pilots able to resolve individual vehicles and tracks in the mud?

 

The further away you start the SAR scanning the better the image. That is because more "points" are able to be generated. Imagine each scan happens once per second, faster in real life, and each scan is a "slice" taken at that particular angle to the target(s). The more slices you have the more data points your computers can use to generate an image.

 

 

The only thing you can really find is that it is listed at greater than 60 miles. Remember it can be used to generate GPS data for targets and assign them to weapons that can hit targets from 100+ miles away...

[Emmy]

The further away you start the SAR scanning the better the image. That is because more "points" are able to be generated. Imagine each scan happens once per second, faster in real life, and each scan is a "slice" taken at that particular angle to the target(s). The more slices you have the more data points your computers can use to generate an image.

 

 

The only thing you can really find is that it is listed at greater than 60 miles. Remember it can be used to generate GPS data for targets and assign them to weapons that can hit targets from 100+ miles away...

 

That's some pretty amazing tech. If this comes to fruition for the Hornet at some point, Hormuz better be a pretty big map!

[RShackleford]

At what distance(s) are pilots able to resolve individual vehicles and tracks in the mud?

 

Very far, but remember that it is very difficult to find targets in SAR unless you have pretty decent coordinates to start with. There are modes for seeing movers but it involves doppler effect, so just like how a bandit can notch to break your lock, if the vehicle is moving perpendicular to you then the radar won't pick it up because it can't filter the radar return differently than the ground.

 

Generally you go in with a set of coordinates for the target area of something like a building, map the target area starting from large maps to small, then designate on the intended target. Vehicles aren't really a pre-planned target that you use the radar for. This is only really useful for GPS denied environments, otherwise for a pre-planned strike you just drop a JDAM on CAT I coordinates given to you by intel and call it a day. It's also useful for GPS denied environments in updating the mission nav computer by mapping then updating off geographic features with known coordinates.

 

Don't expect to be jumping in DCS F-18 and using the A2G radar to find targets often, the TPOD is still going to be your primary means of finding targets and designating. It offers something new and it will be helpful for finding convoys as long as you're approaching them from the right axis to avoid doppler notch, but unless you're in a hardcore sim community that makes strike missions complete with top-down target imagery to go with it, you're likely not going to use SAR mapping after trying it out a few times and will go back to the ATFLIR.

[Kev2go]

yea il be looking forward to othis.

 

looks like its pretty complex to simulate. Not to product compare, but lets just say other sims have had drastically simplified radar mapping to the point its seems almost arcade like compared to these techniques and what the results offer in images provided.

[Kev2go]

 

Generally you go in with a set of coordinates for the target area of something like a building, map the target area starting from large maps to small, then designate on the intended target.

 

 

yea reading up thats the processes described.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Emmy]

But if you were to be involved in a mission with large distinguishable features like say, a port, or a factory and you know you're striking a relative area, then being able to build up at least a cursory picture of the geography and layout would still give you an advantage (IMO)

[HiJack]

The further away you start the SAR scanning the better the image. That is because more "points" are able to be generated. Imagine each scan happens once per second, faster in real life, and each scan is a "slice" taken at that particular angle to the target(s). The more slices you have the more data points your computers can use to generate an image.

 

 

The only thing you can really find is that it is listed at greater than 60 miles. Remember it can be used to generate GPS data for targets and assign them to weapons that can hit targets from 100+ miles away...

At what distance will the targeting switch from the radar to the targeting pod on the F/A-18C? Or is the radar used as a means of oversight and all targeting done with the pod? The A-10C just uses pod but they may have more accurate targeting information up front.

[Revelation]

At what distance will the targeting switch from the radar to the targeting pod on the F/A-18C? Or is the radar used as a means of oversight and all targeting done with the pod? The A-10C just uses pod but they may have more accurate targeting information up front.

 

That is really going to come down to the target itself. If your target is a fixed structure that can be identified via SAR imaging, then you don't have a need for a targeting pod.

 

You could also have a scenario where your TGT waypoint is set in an area of vehicles. You use your A/G radar to detect what's there. You can switch between GMT or SAR or SAR+GMT and then point your ATFLIR at the target(s) you see for visual ID. In this instance you would target higher threats and leave the rest for Hogs and Harriers.

 

One thing to keep in mind regular A/G mode can scan something like a 20 mile area. The more you focus your radar, aka zoom in (EXP), the smaller the area you can scan at any given time.

 

SAR imaging can only scan, roughly a 1-2 mile area. So it is best used when you know the general area of your target(s).

[mahuja]

the TPOD is still going to be your primary means of finding targets and designating. It offers something new and it will be helpful for finding convoys as long as [doppler]...

you're likely not going to use SAR mapping after trying it out a few times and will go back to the ATFLIR.

 

While I agree for the simple case... (they love their pods for a reason)

 

1, you may not be carrying a tpod. Whether an issue of limited availability, or because you need the hardpoints for the extra missile or fuel/bombs.

 

2, I'd like to remind people of this optional-in-dcs thing called weather. If the weather, or weather in combination with air defenses, prohibits tpod usage, A-G radar targeting is still available.

 

3, If you're at low altitude the tpod has greater range error when you can't use LRF. At that point, the radar may give better range information. At that point, using the tpod to cue the radar rather than the other way around may be viable.

[kaoqumba]

In the latest video, EXP3 (SAR), does not achieve similar imaging effects at all. It actually looks more like a further magnification of EXP2. I hope that's not the end result.

[BarTzi]

While I agree for the simple case... (they love their pods for a reason)

 

1, you may not be carrying a tpod. Whether an issue of limited availability, or because you need the hardpoints for the extra missile or fuel/bombs.

 

2, I'd like to remind people of this optional-in-dcs thing called weather. If the weather, or weather in combination with air defenses, prohibits tpod usage, A-G radar targeting is still available.

 

3, If you're at low altitude the tpod has greater range error when you can't use LRF. At that point, the radar may give better range information. At that point, using the tpod to cue the radar rather than the other way around may be viable.

 

You would be bothered by weather in DCS only if it's not a pre planned strike. If you are expecting to scan an area, find targets with the radar and then engage - they better be big and distinguishable

(runway, bridge, sam site), otherwise you just won't be able to tell what you are looking at.

[Swift.]

In the latest video, EXP3 (SAR), does not achieve similar imaging effects at all. It actually looks more like a further magnification of EXP2. I hope that's not the end result.

 

If anything it's a little bit overmodelled in DCS, but it's decently accurate enough for DCS.

[Kev2go]

In the latest video, EXP3 (SAR), does not achieve similar imaging effects at all. It actually looks more like a further magnification of EXP2. I hope that's not the end result.

 

 

Yea I agree Same. Reallly looks more like EXP2 with artificial magnifiation. the earlier WIP screenshots EXP 3 seemed to show much greater magnification and a crisper image relative to what was presented in wag's latest video.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again It was never clarified by wags or any team member if they were modelling the APG 73 Phase 1 or the APG73 Phase 2 radar.

 

That and it also depends on the distance a given target is being mapped from. The closer one is, the more sharp the resolution should be gradually getting. I mean hell even in Real beam mode without any EXP modes utilizied you can't even make out an airstrip , but would will eventually see it fairly clearly within 10 NM.

 

 

 

If anything it's a little bit overmodelled in DCS, but it's decently accurate enough for DCS.

 

or rather under modeled, if it behaving more like DBS EXP 2 with extra magnification rather than SAR. Then again this is still EA, so i think we can expect will be more fine tuning, and of course more A/G radar updates pertaining to adding in other modes are needed for completion.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Kev2go

[Swift.]

Please, any ED member reading this. Do not cave into the mob. Don't make AG radar into another LAU88. It is not meant to be a great sar mapping radar. Quite the contrary, it has been anecdotally described as useless.

[Kev2go]

Please, any ED member reading this. Do not cave into the mob. Don't make AG radar into another LAU88. It is not meant to be a great sar mapping radar. Quite the contrary, it has been anecdotally described as useless.

 

Useless in the context of last couple decades of nothing but middle east low intensity warfare in ideal weather conditions and a permissive environment against small groups of irregular fighters.

 

Sure. Then you have the luxury of not caring about A/G Radar.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Kev2go

[Swift.]

Useless in the context of last couple decades of nothing but middle east low intensity warfare in ideal weather conditions and a permissive environment against small groups of irregular fighters.

 

Sure. Then you have the luxury of not caring about A/G Radar.

 

Why, you've cracked it! Modern fighter pilots must just not train at all for any kind of peer level combat.

[Kev2go]

Why, you've cracked it! Modern fighter pilots must just not train at all for any kind of peer level combat.

 

right

 

So i guess when GPS is jammed, and/or bad weather prevents any effective TGP use because the radar is still deemed useless they decide to call it a day and go home ? K Got it.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

Please, any ED member reading this. Do not cave into the mob. Don't make AG radar into another LAU88. It is not meant to be a great sar mapping radar. Quite the contrary, it has been anecdotally described as useless.

 

Yeah, please ED don't turn the radar into TankFinder2000...

[Swift.]

right

 

So i guess when GPS is jammed, and/or bad weather prevents any effective TGP use because the radar is still deemed useless they decide to call it a day and go home ? K Got it.

 

If only there were other ways to update the INS.

[Kev2go]

If only there were other ways to update the INS.

 

If only there were other intended uses for the A/G radar besides INS updates.