A/G Radar Worries and ED work overload.

[Swift.]

Playing the old classic, Graphsim's F/A-18 Hornet 3.0 and Korea, I used to enjoy using the GMT mode to pick up moving convoys and tanks as well as SEA to pick out ships. I wonder (err..umm..GB/Lex :smilewink:) what real Hornet pilots would say about use of these two modes? Again, I think they will be a lot of fun to play with, but I don't think they are nearly as high up the list as many here assume. ED has done a pretty good job at giving us the essentials first. :thumbup:

 

Of the various (anonymous) ex-hornet pilots who I have seen speak on the matter, the overall response can be summed up by: 'never used it outside of initially learning about it, its pretty much only useful for seeing storms to avoid'

[Kang]

Personally I'd assume that 2005 Hornet pilot would have a very different take on it from a 1995 Hornet pilot, really. That's at least what I took from talking to a Tornado driver a few years ago.

[Seaside]

That said , can someone direct me to a detailed training video using the Litening pod and Harpoons in an anti-ship patrol ? I've looked through many video where the player knows approximately where the target is or has a waypoint already designated.

But nothing on a random anti-ship patrol that I can find.

[Dunx]

That said , can someone direct me to a detailed training video using the Litening pod and Harpoons in an anti-ship patrol ? I've looked through many video where the player knows approximately where the target is or has a waypoint already designated.

But nothing on a random anti-ship patrol that I can find.

 

I've been dreading asking this, thank you :)

[CarbonFox]

I'm simply looking forward to using the A/G radar when finally employing the Harpoon and SLAMMER. The Tpod will come in handy for the other ordinance.

[Guram]

Any updates on F-18 A/G radar? It would be nice to know what progress was made and at which point the development is now

[S-GERAT]

I've been dreading asking this, thank you :)

 

Unfortunately right now, the only thing you can do with the Harpoon is obtain the heading and the distance to the target from the tgp and input it in the missile. You also can input some settings like flight and terminal profile, self destruct range etc.. is pretty straightforward.

[Steel Jaw]

I am thoroughly fed up with people saying A2G radar is not a big deal for an Attack jet like the Hornet. You apparently have little idea of what you speak. As a long time flier of Falcon BMS, I use A2G on damn near every mud moving mission. From SAR to GMT it is a vital and effective tool.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Mower

[dramabeats]

I am thoroughly fed up with people saying A2G radar is not a big deal for an Attack jet like the Hornet. You apparently have little idea of what you speak. As a long time flier of Falcon BMS, I use A2G on damn near every mud moving mission. From SAR to GMT it is a vital and effective tool.

 

so you contradict several real hornet pilots who flew the jet recently and then back it up with game experience

 

classic

[NineLine]

so you contradict several real hornet pilots who flew the jet recently and then back it up with game experience

 

classic

 

Well Mower, I believe, is speaking from a gamer/simmer point of view, and such cool gadgets and toys are always cool for us, I am sure there is a lot we do and have fun with in a sim that real pilots won't/don't do.

[Fri13]

I am thoroughly fed up with people saying A2G radar is not a big deal for an Attack jet like the Hornet. You apparently have little idea of what you speak. As a long time flier of Falcon BMS, I use A2G on damn near every mud moving mission. From SAR to GMT it is a vital and effective tool.

 

Yes, but we expect more from a DCS than a gaming experience with all-seeing-eye that BMS has. In reality it is nothing amazing, or even useful as you think based BMS.

 

The fun should come from the realistic limitations on system, be it a TPOD stabilization not being perfect, tracking getting lost easily, FLIR image being so mushy/busy that you would have difficulties to find the targets etc.

 

It is not fun when to have perfection as in hypothetical situation in training simulator where everything works perfectly.

 

ED could have implement your wanted fantasy A-G radar in a week if wanted.

All they would have required to be done is capture the area from radar point of view, blur it heavily, apply some noise and contrast filters, lower resolution to match display and then just place target blocks to all unit ID in the area.

 

Done!

 

Just like you have a labels allowing to see where every single unit is, they could just had it to be shown as blocks on radar scope.

 

Want that magical datalink capability too?

Now some of the blocks are marked friendly.

 

After all, ain't it suppose to be fun? Right?

Regardless how the technology really works?

 

Pilots flying F/A-18C lot 20 Hornet, says in 2016 that A-G radar ain't useful. Yet it should be made perfection in DCS because it must be something like in some other game?

 

There is a difference between watching porn, and having sex...

[jasonbirder]

If, as many people with real world experience keep re-iterating - the AG radar in the Hornet isn't utilised...am I the only person who is concerned that CVBGs have no bad weather strike capability?

TGP won't work in rain, you can count on severe GPS degredation vs a peer level adversary and likewise you can't depend on target acquision by HVAs/drones in a heavily contested environment...

I know a CVBG brings along a few TLAMs...but not THAT many!

[Swift.]

If, as many people with real world experience keep re-iterating - the AG radar in the Hornet isn't utilised...am I the only person who is concerned that CVBGs have no bad weather strike capability?

TGP won't work in rain, you can count on severe GPS degredation vs a peer level adversary and likewise you can't depend on target acquision by HVAs/drones in a heavily contested environment...

I know a CVBG brings along a few TLAMs...but not THAT many!

 

If only there was some kind of internal navigation system that hornets have, some thing can be fixed using things other than GPS and radar. That kind of internal navigation system (let's call it an ins for ease of use) would allow the pilots to strike targets in bad weather.

 

Also consider for a moment that this god radar you are talking about, will also have trouble seeing through weather. Evident by the fact that it's only real world use is to see weather formations.

[Harker]

Why are we debating again over this? Whether it is useful or not, it exists in the real jet, so we're getting it. And I hope we're getting it modeled as close to the real thing as possible, limitations and all. I don't expect it to be particularly useful for finding mud (the TPOD is still the sensor of choice), but nevertheless, I'm looking forward to having it.

[Airhunter]

If, as many people with real world experience keep re-iterating - the AG radar in the Hornet isn't utilised...am I the only person who is concerned that CVBGs have no bad weather strike capability?

TGP won't work in rain, you can count on severe GPS degredation vs a peer level adversary and likewise you can't depend on target acquision by HVAs/drones in a heavily contested environment...

I know a CVBG brings along a few TLAMs...but not THAT many!

 

 

There is a big difference between an old PD dish and an AESA you'll find on a Rhino or F35. Especially the 35.

[Steel Jaw]

so you contradict several real hornet pilots who flew the jet recently and then back it up with game experience

 

classic

 

Sources please.

 

Im perfectly willing to be PROVEN wrong.

 

As a married man Im very often wrong anyhow.

 

Having said that, I find that many folks denigrating BMS have never used it extensively andso know absolutely JACK about that sim.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Mower

[Swift.]

Sources please.

 

Im perfectly willing to be PROVEN wrong.

 

As a married man Im very often wrong anyhow.

 

Read through this thread, Lex and G B are hornet pilots.

 

Further to that many people comment here after discussing with Lex and G B on the Speed and Angels discord.

[Northstar98]

How is the usefulness of the AG RADAR and having a pissing contest with TGPs not completely irrelevant?

 

It doesn't have to be the most useful feature or the most capable thing - that's not how it works and who cares? If it did work like that then why bother with any aircraft other than the A-10C, F/A-18C and F-16C?

 

Hell just do the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4 and there done, no need for anything else, I mean really?

 

 

What we should be asking is this:

• Does the real aircraft have it?
  
• Can we feasibly implement it realistically?
  

 

 

The AIM-9M isn't as useful as the AIM-9X, but we still have it don't we?

 

Dumb bombs aren't as useful as JDAMs or LGBs let alone JSOWs, we still have them don't we? I mean we even have the BDU-33 and CAP-9M, how useful are those exactly?

 

Personally, I'm far more satisfied and find it more rewarding when I use something that maybe isn't the most capable thing in the world.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Northstar98

[jasonbirder]

If only there was some kind of internal navigation system that hornets have, some thing can be fixed using things other than GPS and radar. That kind of internal navigation system (let's call it an ins for ease of use) would allow the pilots to strike targets in bad weather.

 

Also consider for a moment that this god radar you are talking about, will also have trouble seeing through weather. Evident by the fact that it's only real world use is to see weather formations.

 

 

Even back in the 80's All weather strike aircraft didn't bomb targets off an INS fix...

 

 

As for not being able to use Radar to lock up ground targets in bad weather...i'd suggest you talk to a few cold war era a6/f111/tornado drivers!

[Fri13]

Why are we debating again over this? Whether it is useful or not, it exists in the real jet, so we're getting it. And I hope we're getting it modeled as close to the real thing as possible, limitations and all. I don't expect it to be particularly useful for finding mud (the TPOD is still the sensor of choice), but nevertheless, I'm looking forward to having it.

 

Yes, it is something that is nice to get implemented, but not if it is made unrealistic.

 

Our TPOD's are already unrealistically good by definition, stabilization etc. Our lasers has no limitations in their ranges (not talking about 8 nmi range bug etc) or the ammunition to actually detect the laser spot from maximum ranges.

 

Lots of the sensors and other systems should be added with a "fluctuation" that is realistic.

 

But how many virtual pilot really would like to get to situation where they can not trust artificial 100% accurate sensors? There are already plenty who are screaming in panic when they can't visually spot a F-5 from 15 km distance!

 

Regardless that real pilots would say anything like:

 

It was tiny for a fighter, especially one with two engines. It had no modern sysstems, unless you consider hydraulics to be modern. No anti-skid, no INS nor GPS. No HUD. Just a simple old-fashioned pulse radar and basic gunsight. It had no defensive systems, no RWR nor expendable countermeasures, other than the fact that when pointed nose-on to an adversary it completely dissapeared, like a cloacking device being activated. There was no sophisticated technology required to enable the disappearing act, just the fact that the pilot sat in cramped little cockpit on the head of a needle with tiny, razor thin wings behind him.

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-vfc-13-adversary-pilot-explains-how-you-can-fly-and-fight-in-the-iconic-f-5-tiger-ii

 

And that is the problem here. In VR using Rift S, I can spot a MiG-21Bis on the sky from past 14 km. I can do that same thing with F-5. I can spot a Mi-24 flying NOE from 7-9 km (slant) range while at 6000 ft.

 

And people here are whining that they can't spot things? That they want "more realism" with various assistance for spotting things?!

 

That same case is exactly here. Some people do not want to accept that spotting something in the sky or on the ground is extremely difficult! You can't just turn on radar and set it to A-G mode and get blocks appear on the radar scope where ever there is a living unit!

 

It is more like "Yes, there is the 3 km long airbase that I am suppose to see", but as well you could just look your map and see it there! Sure on your map there ain't the C-130 or 747 parked, but that you can detect with TPOD by simply pointing it at that location!

 

If you are supporting ground troops example in the city, you should know where they are. You can't support your troops if you don't know where they are as you might as well engage them! If you know where your troops are and they know where the enemy is, then they will visually guide you on enemy. They literally talk over radio to you that what there is as landmarks for you to find. Sure if you are attacking in foreign country it is challenge to know the streetnames. But if you are defending your country, then you will know where is the given street, area and building. So when someone is talking on the radio "X spotted on Y street, heading to east on Z street" you will know where it is. You can even just look outside of your cockpit and you know where to point your weapons. If someone starts to give you coordinates, be it a GPS or even map coordinates, you will find that position in matter of seconds.

 

And that is major benefit when you have accurate and down to 200m scale maps with ground units and pilots. So that middle of the forest where there is no business with radars, TPODS etc. You can get map coordinates over radio and you know where to drop the bomb without line of sight, as long you see the ground for targeting.

 

We are going through these discussions about A-G radars because people have expectations that there is a magical radar that will find everything on everywhere. And all they need to do is to put a cursor on the block and release a weapon.

 

Such a system is relative easy to program. There is no challenge or limitations really in that as everything is known in computer simulator.

But to get a even semi-realistic system that has serious limitations and problems, that is what makes it very difficult.

 

And if people would learn that they don't really see things well, they might get upset when it isn't as powerful they think.

 

In DCS we don't have ground clutter from bushes to rocks etc. We don't have ground units doing their basic training of hiding etc. We don't have the truekind challenges to find the enemies on the ground. So it will be challenge for ED to make a A-G radar that would have real kind limitations and problems. And we likely eventually end up with system that is far better than it should be.

[Fri13]

There is a big difference between an old PD dish and an AESA you'll find on a Rhino or F35. Especially the 35.

 

And even the fancy F-35 has challenge with target that doesn't want to cooperate with them by hiding....

 

And the difference between what F-35 can do to previous generation best thing is major, it is like modern OLED television vs old 12" black and white CRT television from 1970's.

[Swift.]

The situation we find ourselves in DCS isn’t the same ones they find in reality. We don’t have the intel, targetteirs, intelligent ground assets, satellite coverage etc. How many times do I get a general area and know there are enemy ground units around that area, but that’s about it? Often. More akin to desert storm kill boxes than anything else. Would the radar be useful for targeting? Maybe. Would it be helpful for searching. Yes. Searching wide areas with the tgp is like looking through a straw.

 

Funny enough, the ag radar is really bad at searching for unknown threats. Because all you have to go off of is blobs and there is no way to distinguish a building from a rock from tank.

[Fri13]

Yes. Searching wide areas with the tgp is like looking through a straw.

 

Except you wouldn't be doing that.

 

As you mentioned the common intelligence resources (lack of them), you would know where the targets are by general idea and you are actually searching just a couple square kilometer area for the targets. And you would be doing that same thing with the A-G radar as well, requiring to know where to look for the targets in the first place.

 

There are very few cases where someone has commanded a air support to fly in general area and "kill everything that moves there, no friendlies on area, off you go!" like was in the first Gulf War for couple A-10 pilots.

 

The problem still in DCS is that we do not have a proper ground units simulation. You wouldn't find them with A-G radar. You wouldn't find them even with FLIR. Sure if you are fighting against some third world country that is completely ignorant about what technologies there is, but so many first world military has since basic training teaches soldiers to conceal their tracks and themselves. Such technologies, tactics and methods are trained by using a own similar technologies that likely enemy does have. You think your defenses from the enemy perspective as well, not just from your own. You prepare your tactics for various different scenarios and threats than instead just one.

 

None of that is in the DCS, why it is like this:

 

 

You don't need much to spot ground units, and then engage the ground units, because they have zero capabilities to conceal themselves as they would in real life.

 

The DCS "combat" is simulation is limited to inside cockpit and proper methods. We have extremely high quality flight and systems modeling, but everything outside the cockpit is currently extremely simplified. Every sensor is perfection that militaries would pay anything to get hands on. You just point a TPOD on the area and you spot everything there without challenge. You can do it regardless the time of day or weather conditions.

 

The A-G radar will very likely be similar to that perfection. Amazingly great to train the correct procedure, how to release the weapon. But nothing like the real thing when you need to go actually find the true enemy.

 

And when the enemy would be marching on the most easiest place to be spotted, the paved roads etc, they wouldn't be there in such formation that anyone can come and drop a bombs killing everyone. Or that there would be ambush to destroy all with single strike. No, there would be so wide separation that you get only one vehicle out before attacker is compromised, maybe in a good luck you can get two vehicles out at the time in rare cases like crossroads when turning. All those vehicles would likely be equipped with natural stealth materials that would deny you using A-G radar detecting movement. Your best change would be using visual method to see the movement as even FLIR use for it can be wasted time.

 

But if you dominate the airspace so you can freely fly where ever you want, you have already upper hand from the enemy, but you still can't win the war by that way even with the best equippment.

 

The navy and their maritime fighters has been called to counter drug traffickers and pirates, their A-G radars SEA modes have been mediocre at best to counter even small and fast speed boats. All kind big ships radar systems been limited to find threats even today in the Suez Canal.

 

Extremely fancy high tech on paper and in demonstrations, but in reality all becomes questionable. Be it launching a missiles, dropping bombs or spotting enemies etc. It is not at all so easy as in DCS it is.

 

And if you are truly searching larger area than couple square kilometers with TPOD, then you are already lost as you have zero information where the enemy is, and A-G radar wouldn't help in that.

 

https://youtu.be/Aq5HXTGUHGI?t=387

 

So finding a airport with A-G doesn't help much really if you have already a digital moving map capability with good definition map data. Sure the map doesn't include ground units, but at least you will find the airport as well as with A-G radar. And if you can't find a factory complex, aircraft or runways with TPOD, then you are seriously lost.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Fri13

[whiteladder]

If only there was some kind of internal navigation system that hornets have, some thing can be fixed using things other than GPS and radar. That kind of internal navigation system (let's call it an ins for ease of use) would allow the pilots to strike targets in bad weather.

 

Also consider for a moment that this god radar you are talking about, will also have trouble seeing through weather. Evident by the fact that it's only real world use is to see weather formations.

 

I wonder sometimes if people on this forum have no interest in the history of aviation?

 

You do realise that there were whole generations of all weather attack aircraft that's primary sensor was Radar? F111, Tornado, Intruder, su-24. Have you never heard of radar offset bombing. As some people have pointed you would never use ins to strike a pin point target, even the best ins will drift., heck fly heatblurs tomcat for an hour and see where the Ins thinks you are!

 

I don't doubt plenty of current F18 pilots say they never use the a/g radar, but if you think about type of conflicts they have been involved with for the past 20 years why would they.

That's not to say it hasn't in the past been vital and given this is a game, maybe you might conceed doing something other than plinking targets with LGB's might be fun.

 

Hornets have relied on a-g radar in the past before the widespread use of gps weapons and navigation.

 

The following is from Major Steve Pomeroy who flew F-18's with VMFA-333 during the first Gulf War:

 

"My most memorable mission was a big strike. I'm a striker rather than one of the SEAD escorts. My particular target is a railroad yard. Lousy weather, pitch black, low overcast so you can see all of the AAA and surface to air missile coming through it, but you can't physically see the target. We can acquire the target based on radar predictions. You're looking through the head up display showing slant range, elevation. You're told the computer where the target is and the weapons are released base on that information"

Edited May 16, 2020 by whiteladder

[LimitedLiability]

Nick Grey interview with Grim Reapers explains all these questions. Very well done interview, sheds alot of light and makes a ton of sense why ED does what they do.