169th Dedicated - Externals

[D-Scythe]

Ok, do you have a source that explains why your “quote” was not implemented in any version of lomac or falcon?

 

Why are you referencing sims? Are you honestly going to use one simulation as a "source" for another? Since when does Lock On have to "be" like Falcon 4.0 to be realistic?

 

ECM in Falcon 4.0 is a joke too, with its 20 nm burn-through. Should we implement that too?

 

Or a source that demonstrates that your quote is true!

 

http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=65

 

And if you don't have a subscription, try this frugal's thread, because you love Falcon 4.0 so much:

 

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=94591

 

I'll sum it for you:

 

Swingkid: "An Eagle pilot once told me his experience was that the detection range and bug/lock range were practically identical."

 

Mirv (RL EWO): "SwingKid, keep in mind, the way Falcon models the radar in this respect may not be correct in real life. The Eagle pilot does have good words of wisdom though."

 

Note that just because ECM burn-through and flat-plate antennae radar performance have been modelled consistently throughout the history of the Falcon sims (consistently wrong, mind you), nobody is able to defend this modelling or explain why it's modelled as such in the first place.

 

And the people who actually do this kind of thing for a living have all but explicitly said that Falcon 4.0 and Lock On is wrong.

 

Your quote “Western radars should be able to lock anything they can detect/see on the scope”

 

Of course we are not talking about AESA radar ...

Even with an AESA radar: Let suppose it can show an F-22 or a F-117 on your scope doesn’t mean that you can lock it.

 

And the logic behind this reasoning is....what?

[TucksonSonny]

Why are you referencing sims? Are you honestly going to use one simulation as a "source" for another? Since when does Lock On have to "be" like Falcon 4.0 to be realistic?

 

ECM in Falcon 4.0 is a joke too, with its 20 nm burn-through. Should we implement that too?

 

 

 

http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=65

 

And if you don't have a subscription, try this frugal's thread, because you love Falcon 4.0 so much:

 

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=94591

 

I'll sum it for you:

 

Swingkid: "An Eagle pilot once told me his experience was that the detection range and bug/lock range were practically identical."

 

Mirv (RL EWO): "SwingKid, keep in mind, the way Falcon models the radar in this respect may not be correct in real life. The Eagle pilot does have good words of wisdom though."

 

Note that just because ECM burn-through and flat-plate antennae radar performance have been modelled consistently throughout the history of the Falcon sims (consistently wrong, mind you), nobody is able to defend this modelling or explain why it's modelled as such in the first place.

 

And the people who actually do this kind of thing for a living have all but explicitly said that Falcon 4.0 and Lock On is wrong.

 

 

 

And the logic behind this reasoning is....what?

 

The Eagle pilot said the word “practically” ;)

 

Ok, Swingkid is in your camp!

 

ED-1 from Lead Pursuit is in my camp:

 

He quoted:

“

Ok, lets take this step by step in the sim,

1) the F16 radar is affected by lose of range aprox 50% from Jammer. Each ac has its own ECM and non jammed detection ranges so the 20nm is only for a F16 vs F16.

2) the F16bk52 radar range is aprox 41nm

3) If you see contacts past 40nm (basically 32nm +), this contact is most like a group of ac shown as 1 blimp on radar (outside bubble the vehicles are 2d entity).

Once you get into bubble range they are detected as each ac.

 

You can test this easy in Dogfight module as there is no bubble cap range.

The ECM and radar ranges are close to older version just that now we have more versions modeled.

Any documentation from past versions of F4 will work fine with AF, the concept is all the same.

 

I don't see really anything wrong here.

 

Ed

LP Dev

”

 

 

 

 

About AESA: it is practically impossible to jam an AESA radar thus burn-through concept is practically not existing.

[D-Scythe]

ED-1 from Lead Pursuit is in my camp:

 

He quoted:

“

Ok, lets take this step by step in the sim,

1) the F16 radar is affected by lose of range aprox 50% from Jammer. Each ac has its own ECM and non jammed detection ranges so the 20nm is only for a F16 vs F16.

2) the F16bk52 radar range is aprox 41nm

3) If you see contacts past 40nm (basically 32nm +), this contact is most like a group of ac shown as 1 blimp on radar (outside bubble the vehicles are 2d entity).

Once you get into bubble range they are detected as each ac.

 

You can test this easy in Dogfight module as there is no bubble cap range.

The ECM and radar ranges are close to older version just that now we have more versions modeled.

Any documentation from past versions of F4 will work fine with AF, the concept is all the same.

 

I don't see really anything wrong here.

 

Ed

LP Dev

”

 

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but did you even read this post that you just quoted? Cause it doesn't do anything to explain why they modelled things WRONGLY in Falcon 4.0, but rather HOW things are modelled in Falcon 4.0.

 

Unfortunately, I don't care HOW things are modelled in Falcon 4.0.

 

BTW, you would note that Swingkid subsequently "beats" ED-1 from LP, by making an undeniable case that a 20nm burn-through cannot exist, and is impossible with the APG-68.

 

About AESA: it is practically impossible to jam an AESA radar thus burn-through concept is practically not existing.

 

Where did anyone say anything about AESA radars vs. ECM/jamming?

 

Seriously, it seems like you're having a one-sided conversation with yourself. There is no evidence that you are reading over my replies, and if that is the case, I really don't see the point of continuing this. So far, you basically repeated one thing over and over - the Falcon 4.0 is like "this," so "this" must be right.

[TucksonSonny]

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but did you even read this post that you just quoted? Cause it doesn't do anything to explain why they modelled things WRONGLY in Falcon 4.0, but rather HOW things are modelled in Falcon 4.0.

 

Unfortunately, I don't care HOW things are modelled in Falcon 4.0.

 

BTW, you would note that Swingkid subsequently "beats" ED-1 from LP, by making an undeniable case that a 20nm burn-through cannot exist, and is impossible with the APG-68.

 

 

Thus if ED-1 from LP does not respond to Swingkid his remarks means that he “beats” ED-1 from LP

 

I honestly don't mean to be rude too and I have all the respect for your friend Swingkid with his nice collection of documentation and formulas but I have btw info of a real life kill by a Dutch F-16A MLU on a Yugo-Mig29 (including the recordings).

 

AWACS was on top of it: the first F-16 was unable to get a lock-on the Mig-blimp and needed to break off because he was already running into Alamo range.

 

Another F-16 approached the Mig29 had also problems to get a lock on

(again cursor problems with his blimp on his scope).

(It was about at 15nm close to get finally his lock on the Serbian Mig29 and he could at last launch his 120)

 

And No, I don’t give you that source…

BTW, there could be tons of reasons why you can’t get a lock with your cursor:

-ground clutter

-weak signal (the blimp is actually already a history blimp)

-more than 1 air-target that show only 1 blimp on your scope (are you going to lock 2 at the same time maybe?)

Good night... :D

[D-Scythe]

Thus if ED-1 from LP does not respond to Swingkid his remarks means that he “beats” ED-1 from LP

I honestly don't mean to be rude too and I have all the respect for your friend Swingkid with his nice collection of documentation and formulas but I have btw info of a real life kill by a Dutch F-16A MLU on a Yugo-Mig29 (including the recordings).

AWACS was on top of it: the first F-16 was unable to get a lock-on the Mig-blimp and needed to break off because he was already running into Alamo range.

Another F-16 approached the Mig29 had also problems to get a lock on

(again cursor problems with his blimp on his scope).

(It was about at 15nm close to get finally his lock on the Serbian Mig29 and he could at last launch his 120)

And No, I don’t give you that source…

Good night... :D

 

I have a source that says all kills made by the F-15 during Desert Storm were made with AIM-120A prototypes, and that no AIM-7s were actually fired during that conflict. Furthermore, the APG-63V2 AESA radar was operational by then with the 58th FS, which explained why that F-15 squadron accounted for half the kills scored during the entire conflict.

 

Unfortunately, I can't show you my source. And all other sources that say my source is wrong is intentionally lying because they are all part of some Anti-Eastern conspiracy :D

[ericinexile]

Do a test yourself, instead of parroting others. It's clear you have no clue what real ECM strobing is versus what the ECM in LOMAC does. I've got plenty of tracks where you cannot lock a strober (who has a macro programmed) until 10 miles, where 13 miles is normally burn thru.

 

Easy Rug! It's just an opinion, man. This is just a game and hardly worth this level of emotion by otherwise reasonable adults. You are an adult, aren't you? True, I know nothing about how ECM works in the real world other than that it is far more sophisticated than that modeled in the GAME. I don't strobe because I find it irritating when others do it, not because it limits my ability to lock but because it's a nuisance to deal with on my HUD or HDD.

 

We are playing a GAME, guys. It's a great GAME but just a GAME nonetheless. It has many limitations which hinder it's applicablilty in real life. Most days that I go to work I fly with guys who either currently or once flew U.S. fighters. Never have I once mentioned LOMAC or F4 or asked about any of the technology or tactics used in their military lives. It would be silly to do so because I'm playing a GAME and my querries would seem helplessly childish.

 

If we want to make the GAME real then we should all get together and pre-brief the mission for four hours, fly for 15 minutes, then debrief, then play golf.

 

Smokin' Hole

[TucksonSonny]

I have a source that says all kills made by the F-15 during Desert Storm were made with AIM-120A prototypes, and that no AIM-7s were actually fired during that conflict. Furthermore, the APG-63V2 AESA radar was operational by then with the 58th FS, which explained why that F-15 squadron accounted for half the kills scored during the entire conflict.

 

Unfortunately, I can't show you my source. And all other sources that say my source is wrong is intentionally lying because they are all part of some Anti-Eastern conspiracy :D

 

The AIM-120A was a terrible missile! Didn’t you know that? :D

It was actually worse than the Viet-Nam-sparrow07.

You can read all about it in …. I forgot the title…

Something about Eagles in Desert Storm….(I will look it up for you tomorrow)

Good night :D

[D-Scythe]

The AIM-120A was a terrible missile! Didn’t you know that? :D

It was actually worse than the Viet-Nam-sparrow07.

 

Comparing any missile to the Vietnam-era AIM-7 is not fair! I have one source that says the AIM-7C/E was just so deadly they had to retire it because if they didn't, the missile companies would run out of money because nobody would ever need to make a new radar missile ever :D

[GGTharos]

I've a source that says you've both been negligent with your sewage treatment. ;)

[D-Scythe]

After doing a bit of background reading, I feel incredibly...dumb, for not linking cassegrain to amplitude-monopulse. The Russian radars have to make use of amplitude-monopulse, because it uses cassegrain antennas which, from my understanding, are not as well suited to BVR combat as mechanically scanned slotted arrays (i.e. the APG-70).

 

Since the N001/N019 radars do use an antenna of a cassegrain-type (I think the term might have been "twist cassegrain"), they're stuck with amplitude monopulse instead of phase monopulse, which would explain the shorter tracking range relative to detection range. (Also, it would mean a bunch of other things, none of which are favorable in BVR - such as a bigger notch for targets to hide in)

 

It would also mean that the APG-63/70 in LOMAC and the APG-68 in Falcon 4.0 are modelled as having cassegrain-antennas rather than planar.

[3Sqn_Sven]

I think we can adapt a famous quote from a former Topgun CO to this thread:

 

Beware the lessons of a fighter pilot who would rather fly a slide rule (crap on about simulated radar/ecm) than kick your ass!

 

— Commander Ron 'Mugs' McKeown, USN, Commander of the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School.

 

Get your butts into HL and off the forum :-D

[Prophet]

Somebody is just mad cause they are on dialup. :)

 

How was the walk Sven?

[3Sqn_Sven]

Somebody is just mad cause they are on dialup. :)

 

How was the walk Sven?

 

Bastards with your high speed connections, god I hate Optus, bunch of fuc-grumble-grumble-grumble-tossers-grumble-grumble-grumble-crappy customer service-grumble-grumble-grumble-3 weeks without lockon-grumble-grumble-grumble...

[tflash]

But back on this detect/track/lock thing. I thought one of the problems involved in lock is that your beam has to be narrow enough. The farther away, the less narrow your beam becomes. It could be that the radar is not capable to have a narrow enough beam at its max detection range, no?

 

One of the advantages of AESA is better beam control, which would explain why in an interview I last read a SuperBug pilot said the mayor advantage of APG-79 was that he now could engage the targets at max range, which he claimed was NOT the case with APG-73?

[D-Scythe]

But back on this detect/track/lock thing. I thought one of the problems involved in lock is that your beam has to be narrow enough. The farther away, the less narrow your beam becomes. It could be that the radar is not capable to have a narrow enough beam at its max detection range, no?

 

How would the width of the radar beam factor into the tracking of the target through its doppler return?

 

One of the advantages of AESA is better beam control, which would explain why in an interview I last read a SuperBug pilot said the mayor advantage of APG-79 was that he now could engage the targets at max range, which he claimed was NOT the case with APG-73?

 

"Max range" of what? With which weapon? "Engage" as in he commits his fighter to attack or "engage" as in the point in which weapons are employed/fired?

[tflash]

How would the width of the radar beam factor into the tracking of the target through its doppler return?

 

Lock, not track. Because you need to concentrate more radar energy for lock and missile guidance?

 

 

"Max range" of what? With which weapon? "Engage" as in he commits his fighter to attack or "engage" as in the point in which weapons are employed/fired?

 

I do not have the exact quote at hand, but I guess it was something like being able to use the missile's full range envelope, so I guess being able to lock and launch at longer range.

[GGTharos]

What missile does an F-18 carry that can be used beyond 30nm? ...

[tflash]

They were talking about AIM-120C-5

 

But this is not the main point, GG, what do you think about my first question: is the fact that the beam becomes wider with the distance a possible reason there can be a huge difference in detection range (just listening for a return signal) and lock (directing enough energy on a target so that the missile can use the returns for guidance?)

 

I asked the question becuase i didn't understand D-Scythe's remark about the difference in performance between cassegrain radar and slotted planar array.

[D-Scythe]

Locking is more like continuous tracking.

 

Because you need to concentrate more radar energy for lock and missile guidance?

 

Let's focus on this bit here - you said you need to "concentrate" more energy for lock and missile guidance. You're right in that relatively speaking, the further away a target is, the weaker the RF return is (by virtue of the R^4 rule). But, this doesn't apply: we're not talking about lock vs. lock here, we're talking lock range vs. detection range.

 

The radar's power is actually less concentrated when doing wide scans to search/detect targets, compared to locking a target, where the radar directs all its energy into a much smaller space. Therefore, if a signal coming off a target is strong enough to be detected/tracked with wide search patterns, why can that same signal coming off the target not be tracked when all the RF energy is directed onto it?

 

I mean, does locking a target not cause the radar to concentrate more RF energy on the target in the first place? Like, if you're radar is doing broadsweeps to detect targets, and you decide to lock a target, wouldn't the radar (at this point) go from broadsweeping to finer beams? And would this not effectively "concentrate" more RF energy on the target?

 

Therefore, if the slotted planar array radar, just doing general scanning of an area, is already able to detect/bug a target with broad sweeps, what's to stop it from locking a target, where it generates a much finer, more "concentrated" beam directed entirely onto a target?

 

All this obviously doesn't apply to amplitude-monopulse radars (i.e. the cassegrain N001/019), which splits its power into separate beams to detect/track/lock a target. And it's not the good splitting either - like AESA.

[D-Scythe]

 

But this is not the main point, GG, what do you think about my first question: is the fact that the beam becomes wider with the distance a possible reason there can be a huge difference in detection range (just listening for a return signal) and lock (directing enough energy on a target so that the missile can use the returns for guidance)

 

The missile technically can use any RF return for guidance. It's not a matter of directing enough power onto the target, but rather lighting up the target continuously so the missile can see it continuously.

 

There really isn't as much of a difference in how the radar functions between "detecting" and "locking" as you think. Basically, the radar operates in the same fashion when detecting and locking a target - cept in locking, the beam generated by the radar is directed entirely and continuously onto the target. Again, it's not a matter of absolute power, but rather how the radar's power can be directed continuously onto the target.

[tflash]

All this obviously doesn't apply to amplitude-monopulse radars (i.e. the cassegrain N001/019), which splits its power into separate beams to detect/track/lock a target. And it's not the good splitting either - like AESA.

 

 

Thanks, this was the part I was missing to be able to understand what you meant!

[GGTharos]

It's the way these different antennae direct energy. Aside from that, I don't see why a planar slotted array would have trouble locking onto something it can reliably detect - there's no actual difference between 'scan' and 'lock' in this particular instance.

 

For the cassegrains, as D-Scythe mentioned, the main beam is a little off-axis, so if you steer the antenna at the target to lock onto it, you might be 'missing' just enough to reduce the reflection enough to cause problems.

 

 

They were talking about AIM-120C-5

 

But this is not the main point, GG, what do you think about my first question: is the fact that the beam becomes wider with the distance a possible reason there can be a huge difference in detection range (just listening for a return signal) and lock (directing enough energy on a target so that the missile can use the returns for guidance?)

 

I asked the question becuase i didn't understand D-Scythe's remark about the difference in performance between cassegrain radar and slotted planar array.

[D-Scythe]

Slightly off axis is absolutely right. Swingkid (tried to) explain things to me, and from what I understand....The hypothesis is - given the premise that cassegrain antennas use amplitude monopulse which project two beams (one offset slightly to one side and the other offset to the opposite side of where the antenna is pointing) - when you lock a target with the N001/019 radars, you're putting the target between these 2 radar beams:

 

 

By doing this, the radar is not directing the most sensitive portion of either radar beam (the yellow ones) onto the target, which would explain a decrease in lock range relative to detection range.

 

Planar antennas used in Western radars do not generate radar beams that are offset - all the radar beams generated point in the same direction the antenna is pointing, with all beams being equal in strength (but different in phase). Therefore, when a target flies inside your radar cone and painted by your radar beams, there's no problem with "insensitivity," cause the target is within the "sensitive" portion of all the non-offset beams.

[Ice]

Due to popular demand Externals are going Back ON with the 169th dedicated.

 

Enjoy!

[ericinexile]

Due to popular demand Externals are going Back ON with the 169th dedicated.

 

Enjoy!

 

How dare you try to steer this thread back on topic! :)

 

But seriously. If you allow ext views on anything other than one's OWN plane then CAS/SEAD flights are rendered pointless. A CAP flight only needs to search externals until he sees an easy target, then head towards that lat/long.

 

Smokin' Hole