SAR mode for the air to ground radar?

[G B]

Well said Klars!

 

And mentioning how newer modern radars have use for SAR mapping (which they really do) versus what old mech scan radars can do is not a worthwhile discussion. The newer ones are really useful. Do not take that to mean that older ones are/were useful.

 

Basically, what Klars said!

[LastRifleRound]

Quick anecdote from a training sortie a few years ago. We had been doing a lot of CAS and Air to Air stuff in our training cycle the two or three months prior. I get slated for a night flight range ride to go practice bombing a radar reflector raft out in the middle of the ocean (Donna Nook range in the UK if you wanna look it up) I'm flying as the number 1 WSO, my number 2 WSO is the squadron weapons officer, one of the smartest "gets it the best" dudes I know.

 

We go out to do night TF LGB lofts over the water. nobody has done much with the A/G mapping in a couple of months because that's not what we were practicing. After a solid brief we go out, and the Weapons Officer completely goons up his mapping and switchology leading to several assessed misses on the target. We get back and he crushes himself in the debrief for not having practiced this "basic" stuff often enough over the last few months of flights and sims.

 

Hes easily one of the best/smartest aviators I know, and the target was one of the easiest for this kind of attack, literally the only thing out in the middle of the ocean that we had precise coordinates to. But you can still miss if you are not practiced and proficient for what is going on. And this is only a couple of months of not doing "basic" skills leading to atrophy. Relying on innate skill/old man strength can only get you so far, and just being an athlete and doing it doesn't always work.

 

A/G SAR mapping has its uses, in the real world it has kinda gone out of favor for a lot of reasons that Lex and G B have spoken about. one of the biggest ones is return on investment of training, If its modelled correctly (as RBM modes seem to be) in DCS with actual limitations, its not going to make your use any easier, and you'll start to understand why only specialist platforms (F-15E is honestly the only fighter I know of in the US military) really continue to use it as a primary tool in their mission set.

 

There are tons of other easier/bigger bang for buck tools that you can use when you have a limited amount of training/time that will give you better results. The specific few instances where the A/G radar is the best option, its better to bring in the specialist community, rather than flex the community that never uses it and has no TTP's for using it on a day to day basis.

 

This makes a lot of sense for a real world pilot, and everything you said makes me more excited to try it, not less.

 

I want to use it for the challenge, specifically because it is not ideal. I want all the limitations 100% there so I have to deal with it. That's the point.

 

We are virtual pilots. It costs us nothing to fly a sortie, and our skills will never be used for anything but our own enjoyment. We get to specialize in whatever we want because, at the end of the day, we are playing a computer game. A very complex one, but an entertainment product when all is said and done.

 

I'm a tinkerer at heart. A maker. Woodworker, welder, software engineer. I like making things, and taking things apart and understanding how they work. The more complex, the better. I do it with software, with business, with everything. I know a lot of guys are like me and got into aviation because aircraft, particularly fighters, are complex things that have a lot going on,

 

This is the opposite of what real world pilots want to deal with I'm sure. Simple is better. Definitely.

 

But this is a sim. We are intentionally doing something we don't have to be doing. If we want "easy", then why even do a takeoff checklist or BIT or even a ramp start in DCS? None of it is "necessary". In fact, we should all go grow vegetables or something, because DCS isn't "necessary" either. (You really should grow some food though. Do both).

 

What if I want to simulate your night time sortie? I need an AG radar in the sim to experience that.

 

I hope this helps you real world pilots get into the head of those of us waiting for this feature. It has nothing at all to do with making things easier. For me, it has to do with taking a challenge on and seeing what I can do with it.

 

I want to hilariously miss blobs and hone in on an actual technique that might work because I have the time and I feel like it. Some people like hours of BFM. This is what I like.

 

I routinely use the Viggen's RR mode in ANF. Real Viggen pilots hardly ever used this. I've gotten pretty accurate with it. I enjoy using it. It's fun to try and get it to work for the same reason it's fun to try a carrier break at mach.

 

I'm 37 and wonderfully employed (thank God). I don't need my DCS skills to translate to anything but fun for myself.

 

Hope this makes sense to you all.

Edited May 6, 2020 by LastRifleRound

[jojo]

I think this story is interesting.

As a summary, there are things US Navy didn't do with Hornet because USA did have better platforms or dedicated squadrons, or USAF or whatever.

But an export customer who doesn't have all these options may try to use a wider array of capacity from the jet.

 

 

And like LastRifleRound said, what's the problem if we want to practice something that is built in the jet but not used anymore because other tools are available since then ?

[jasonbirder]

Yes they do.

 

Your assumption that training in various degraded environments can only be solved by an AG radar is incorrect.

 

 

No TGP and no GPS...and they won't use the AG Radar - wow what are they using...Mark One eyeball...

Don't quote 3rd party assets for long range missions vs peer level adversaries...they're surely not niave enough to rely on drones and HVAs for targetting...are they?

[ChickenSim]

And like LastRifleRound said, what's the problem if we want to practice something that is built in the jet but not used anymore because other tools are available since then ?

 

Nobody is trying to poopoo on your guys' fun, they are trying to help manage your expectations.

 

Laymen like yourself have come here with ignorant claims that the radar is going to be noticeably better than the real world examples provided or that the only reason they don't use the radar in real life is because they've been doing CAS in permissive environments.

 

The experts are coming in to refute these inaccurate claims and clarify that if it's modeled accurately, you shouldn't expect it to be very useful in any environment unless it's the only tool you've got left, and even then it may not cut the mustard.

 

So use the AG radar all you want when you get it, but understand that they're just trying to circumvent some buyer's remorse from hyping up this particular feature over other more useful ones. If ED does their job well, they'll have poured all that time, money, and effort into something that few players may end up using.

 

No TGP and no GPS...and they won't use the AG Radar - wow what are they using...Mark One eyeball...

Don't quote 3rd party assets for long range missions vs peer level adversaries...they're surely not niave enough to rely on drones and HVAs for targetting...are they?

 

1) Consider that there are other (tactical) solutions to the problems you're referring to.

 

2) You can also read between the lines a bit and consider that if the conditions are such that the Hornet's AG radar is the only option you've got, it may be better not to fly the sortie at all (and risk your jets and pilots) than rely on an otherwise unreliable (or tactically unsound) option for getting the job done.

Edited May 6, 2020 by ChickenSim

[Fri13]

Fri13 out of curiosity, are you from a military aviation background? You speak with the conviction of someone who is.

 

Not military aviation background but I have own contacts and experiences through other profession. Closest to be a F-18 pilot was some real simulator testing. But back then we didn't have Hornet coming to DCS so didn't care so much about systems etc that I would now die to test.

 

When you hang enough among pilots for other profession there is possibilities learn small details, and those are far more interesting for me than the specs or flying itself really. As being more interested about systems and their logic and functions, I like to use hornet in DCS literally more as a study simulator than flight simulator. What it has made possible is to understand more in depth the stories as you know better that why something went bad or right etc as the inside jokes etc becomes understandable.

 

What I miss more is the missing possibility to experience MiG-21Bis for obvious reason as I find Soviet era fighters more interesting. I have planned to check again to get back to real simulator as now after hornet being in DCS I definitely have far more things to test inside a cockpit, as funny it might sound but I just find the technicalities and functions more interesting from historic and engineering reasons. That is why I love to talk to pilots as you get to know here and there a things that can be even for them "it is just so" when for me it is "who in the name of... did place this button here!".

Like example once in one weddings I was seated next to Hornet pilot I didn't know, and his wife was as well seriously interested about aircrafts and we spent that night talking about various fighters combat trainings between different nation's etc and we were last ones to leave the place. Before leaving he invited me to possible buddy-ride in hornet, but it has been decade since then but I still have contact information... But likely he is already retired.

[Fri13]

 

The experts are coming in to refute these inaccurate claims and clarify that if it's modeled accurately, you shouldn't expect it to be very useful in any environment unless it's the only tool you've got left, and even then it may not cut the mustard.

 

So use the AG radar all you want when you get it, but understand that they're just trying to circumvent some buyer's remorse from hyping up this particular feature over other more useful ones. If ED does their job well, they'll have poured all that time, money, and effort into something that few players may end up using.

 

I like to see A-G mode in hornet as much as next guy, but I have learned long time ago as well that it is one of those political specifications than tactical.

And especially this from the ground units standing point after real trainings how to conceal troops against enemy means of observation, reconnaissance and targeting.

 

When you get to train against a Hornet and expected enemy capabilities, it gives completely different perspective than only from a pilot point of view that A-G radar would be a "all seeing eye" like sauron, or somekind DCS overpowered sensor against dummy AI units on the ground that does nothing better than look pretty in a sandbox.

 

Sure it is "tool in a toolbox" but here it is more like a "when you get the hammer, everything looks like a nail" kind thing in DCS.

 

What I find most sad is that there is somekind myth here that once the A-G radar comes, you can just turn it on and scan the whole front hemisphere and get blocks pop on radar and you have easy time just to engage anything there is.

 

There are things I would like to see more, but still A-G will be fun in DCS terms until it might get too unrealistic, but that is to see what ED gets done.

[toilet2000]

I've been told by people in the know that the RCAF used to train extensively on the usage of the AG radar, especially during the 90s and early 2000s (maybe still today, but I don't have any info on that). They were training for "Fulda Gap tank column hunting" types of mission using GMTI, for example.

 

 

While the US Navy and Marines might have never really used the APG-73's AG radar features to their full extent, not the same thing can be said about other users or other airframes with similar radars. As another example, the F-15E uses its AG radar extensively for weapon delivery, or at the very least they did use it extensively during the 90s.