Jump to content

Will EXP3 mode of air to ground radar be optimized and improved?


kaoqumba

Recommended Posts

Considering what you are all saying about how apg-73 should be great at sar mapping, then it should be very straight forward for you to source a SME who can attest? No?

Whilst I wouldn't dream of arguing the specifics of different Radar blocks A2G capabilities...the question does remain...

What's the plan for for Peer level conflicts (no/degraded GPS) in North-west European winter or Monsoon type weather conditions...

I mean A7's/A6's/F111's/Tornado GR1's etc were available for those kind of missions in the 1980's (20+ years before our notional timeline) is todays answer really F15E's or nothing?

Airbag_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jasonbirder said:
Whilst I wouldn't dream of arguing the specifics of different Radar blocks A2G capabilities...the question does remain...

What's the plan for for Peer level conflicts (no/degraded GPS) in North-west European winter or Monsoon type weather conditions...

I mean A7's/A6's/F111's/Tornado GR1's etc were available for those kind of missions in the 1980's (20+ years before our notional timeline) is todays answer really F15E's or nothing?

 

No of course not. The answer is: its F-35 JSF, or F-15E's. Then nothing 😆


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was prioritised because of the number of nits whinging about it. Those who realised its more limited utility weren't making the fuss.

 

 

I was one of those "nits" that was apparently "whinging about it" so I will go ahead and outline my reasoning behind wanting the ground radar prioritized.

 

In real life modern air operations, we have a lot of highly networked assets that can build a shockingly decent picture of where ground forces are at any given time. We have JSTARS, we have ground assets with datalink setups that can talk to SADL and link 16. We have drones, and we have satellites. All of this stuff helps a pilot in a multi-role aircraft to point their targeting pod on the right stretch of ground to see the target. With all that put into consideration, said multi-role aircraft's ground radar is obviously less important.

 

DCS doesn't have a lot of that. We don't have JSTARS. We don't have a massive command and control network tied into all kinds of different assets. We can certainly make missions where we can imply (via briefing text and such) how we know where fixed forces are but we don't really have the required assets or the complete datalink setup needed to do this kind of thing organically in the mission itself (at least not without some very artificial feeling scripting). This is where ground radar that is normally less useful in real life suddenly becomes more useful in the sim. It won't be a magic bullet that solves all the problems but it does allow aircraft like the F-16, F/A-18, and JF-17 to locate enemy forces more easily as long as they have a very, very rough idea of what direction to look.

 

Let's put this into a practical example. In the past ten or so years of making missions for DCS, I have always run into a problem where I can't just have players hunt for enemy ground targets (especially moving ones) without pretty specifically guiding them to exactly where they need to be. The targeting pod is a great tool but only if you have a pretty good idea of where exactly you need to point it. The TGP isn't a search tool. It isn't something you would use to sweep large areas. Since we have not had access to modern multi-role level ground radar until the release of the JF-17, I have had to find sometimes rather convoluted ways to avoid mission types that require players to actually search for targets without knowing pretty much exactly where they are in advance.

 

Now, you could argue that I could do some stuff via triggers or scripting but I tend to feel that such methods result in a artificial, "gamey" feel for the mission. I like using the sim's existing systems and structure whenever possible.

 

When the JF-17 came out, I suddenly had the option to do missions where players actually have the means to search for ground units. Suddenly they can locate a group of three or four moving vehicles rather quickly even without being led directly to them via waypoints. Now they can use the targeting pod and ground radar together to quickly locate and target units without having to waste a ton of time trying to eyeball a few specks moving along a open field or desert.

 

As I said before, if DCS were to get JSTARS and more fleshed out datalink setups, the ground radar on a individual Viper or Hornet would become less important (as it has in real life) but we don't have those things so ground radar becomes a important part of target acquisition.

 

If you want to do a experiment that kinda highlights what I am talking about (assuming you own either the Hornet or Viper and the JF-17), make a simple scenario where you kinda haphazardly place a handful of BMP's (or something) in the open desert on the Persian Gulf map. don't pay too much attention to where you put them exactly (so you don't easily get to cheat) but make sure they are moving in a large, somewhat confusing pattern. Make sure you place a waypoint in the (very) general direction of the area these ground units are operating (because that would make sense).

 

Now, hop in a Viper/Hornet and use your own eyes and the targeting pod to find this group without knowing exactly where they are. You might eventually find them but it will take a while. You will have to really use your eyes because the "soda straw" view from the targeting pod isn't going to give you a lot to work with.

 

Next, hop in the JF-17 and enable GMT mode on the ground radar. It will not take long at all for a few blips to pop up that you can lock on to. From there, your targeting pod can be slaved directly to that point where you can do all the fine targeting you need to do to get weapons on target.

 

That is the value of the ground radar. It isn't a end all, be all sensor that will tell you everything but it is a fantastic way to get a good general idea of where to point your pod without having to waste a lot of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering what you are all saying about how apg-73 should be great at sar mapping, then it should be very straight forward for you to source a SME who can attest? No?

 

There are certainly numerous SMEs who have attested to the contrary.

 

The group of people who wrote that paper are SMEs.

 

EDs primary source of information are white papers. It's perfectly valid to cite them here.

 

However, I would appreciate a link to the full source so I can examine the entirety of the documentation if it's allowed per forum rules

 

EDIT: just noticed the link. Going through them now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok what you are looking at here is a demonstration of CIP processing, not an improvement to the radar itself. This is a technique used, coincidentally enough, to simulate and process images from several different radars, of which the apg73 is one. Which phase of the radar isn't mentioned as the report was conducted by researchers trying to improve the performance of ground analaysis of SAR imagery and it's breadth didn't address source form factors.

 

Those images are legitimate shots of an -73 radar from an FA18D taken in the real world used as a benchmark for ground based signals processing. I don't see how they're not relevant when used as a comparitive basis.

 

I will go back to the primary problem in the difference in the two representations isn't resolution, rather sensors' general inability to recognize ground objects through non visual means.

 

The JF17 currently has its DBS modes. If you have that module, start the ME, place some large ground building objects on some nice unoccupied flat ground. Put a waypoint on it. Get close enough to set the scale to 10, set the mode to SLAVE then zoom in to DBS2. You won't see a thing. Now do the same over one of the towns in the Caucuses. You will be able to make out individual houses, many of which are smaller than the objects you placed. This is illogical, regardless of useful or useless one may think the feature to be. In fact, I placed mine along some power lines. I could make out each individual power pole, but not the huge warehouse I placed next to them.

 

You can repeat this test in a Viggen. However, the Viggen will see vehicles.

 

Go back to when they first modified the feature list for 2020. They removed FTT. See the reason why. They said they needed to have a way for the radar to recognize these objects. These two things might be related.

 

TL:DR; this debate has been about resolution vs perceived anecdotal usefulness, but I think we're seeing the effects of a very old and annoying characteristic of DCS.


Edited by LastRifleRound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering what you are all saying about how apg-73 should be great at sar mapping, then it should be very straight forward for you to source a SME who can attest? No?

 

There are certainly numerous SMEs who have attested to the contrary.

 

 

And don't forget the fact that some F-15E SME's have said that the Strike Eagle's AG radar is a ton better than a hornet's AG Radar (Super Hornet AG radar is more similar to the SE's one). So it would also be weird for a legacy hornet to have such a "great" resolution.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok what you are looking at here is a demonstration of CIP processing, not an improvement to the radar itself. This is a technique used, coincidentally enough, to simulate and process images from several different radars, of which the apg73 is one. Which phase of the radar isn't mentioned as the report was conducted by researchers trying to improve the performance of ground analaysis of SAR imagery and it's breadth didn't address source form factors.

 

Those images are legitimate shots of an -73 radar from an FA18D taken in the real world used as a benchmark for ground based signals processing. I don't see how they're not relevant when used as a comparitive basis.

 

I will go back to the primary problem in the difference in the two representations isn't resolution, rather sensors' general inability to recognize ground objects through non visual means.

 

The JF17 currently has its DBS modes. If you have that module, start the ME, place some large ground building objects on some nice unoccupied flat ground. Put a waypoint on it. Get close enough to set the scale to 10, set the mode to SLAVE then zoom in to DBS2. You won't see a thing. Now do the same over one of the towns in the Caucuses. You will be able to make out individual houses, many of which are smaller than the objects you placed. This is illogical, regardless of useful or useless one may think the feature to be. In fact, I placed mine along some power lines. I could make out each individual power pole, but not the huge warehouse I placed next to them.

 

You can repeat this test in a Viggen. However, the Viggen will see vehicles.

 

Go back to when they first modified the feature list for 2020. They removed FTT. See the reason why. They said they needed to have a way for the radar to recognize these objects. These two things might be related.

 

TL:DR; this debate has been about resolution vs perceived anecdotal usefulness, but I think we're seeing the effects of a very old and annoying characteristic of DCS.

 

 

Not to detract from the point you are making or go OT as the real issue is of old DCS engine not being able to recognize ground obects.

 

But you yourself said those are legit images of APG73 SAR maps taken specifically from usmc F/A18D's in conjunction with ATARS ( it was stated as much in the paper) , then thats how can be certain the Phase 2 upgrades of radar even if its not explicitly mentioned . I know thats about CIP processing but i simply included the link to the original source it so naysayers here wouldn't claim those were doctored images.

 

Although nowhere explicity stated it was APG73 phase 2, i got there via by deductive reasoning.

 

Phase 2 had software to also make possible use with reconnaissance pods such ATARS or later SHARPS to transmit over SAR map's back over to HQ, in addition to having improved higher resolution sar, rather than "medium resolution SAR"

 

Since the Phase 2 is capable of higher resolution and "recce" additional Spotlight and strip modes. Those images show close zoom level and crisper detail overall not just of objects relative to Then what we have seen so far within DCS.

 

 

 

Again it might be possible that ED has only chosen to model a APG73 Phase 1. Or perhaps A/G is still highly work in progress, since purely from DCS comparisons we can see differences in magnification and Image quality in EXP 3 between what was shown in the video and preceding WIP screenshots.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it came down to it, there's always carpet bombing and dumping on coordinates you were directed to via INS or guesstimation. It isn't precise, but that's how they did it back before TGPs AND AGR :p There is no problem that cannot be solved with the liberal application of high explosives. Except CAS. You kinda need to know what you're shooting at with that one... but otherwise, more bombs = less problems.

Hmm would be really convenient if some smart engineers somewhere could find a way to utilize AG radar along with associated landmarks that have known coordinates to compensate and correct for inaccuracies that propagate within the INS oh.... wait....

 

But yeah, within the context and time frame of DCS, simulating jets that are currently in the air, it totally makes sense to revert to guestimation and carpet bombing the whole area when there is some overcast in game and we cant use the TGP, rather than asking ED to prioritize and develop a technology present in said jets that is purpose built to assist in that scenario.

 

Yeah dude, totally makes sense, you're either using the most advanced TGP, or falling back to guessing and carpet bombing..... But I guess wanting the irl capabilities that assist you in adverse conditions is just 'whinging' because you'd rather have an entire operational mode be missing from the radar than have it compete with whatever other project you see as being more useful.

||i5-9600k||MSI GTX1070Ti Duke||16GB DDR4 G.SKILL Ripjaws V||Gigabyte Aorus B360||X56||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't forget the fact that some F-15E SME's have said that the Strike Eagle's AG radar is a ton better than a hornet's AG Radar (Super Hornet AG radar is more similar to the SE's one). So it would also be weird for a legacy hornet to have such a "great" resolution.

 

Block 1 series (lot 21-25) Super Hornets still had APG73 radar, just as late model Legacy F/A18C/D's. Block 2 Super Hornets had a redesigned nose to house the APG79, although due to some developmental issues, even some early block 2' Super Hornets ( Lot 26-28 ) still initially had APG73's until they got APG79 refits

 

I would imagine an APG79 AESA radar would overall be superior to the APG70, except for maybe absolute maximum detection ranges?

 

Unless we are talking the APG82 AESA that some F15E's have recieving in the last couple years, but is not yet standard across all SE's?


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Block 1 series (lot 21-25) Super Hornets still had APG73 radar, just as late model Legacy F/A18C/D's. Block 2 Super Hornets had a redesigned nose to house the APG79, although due to some developmental issues, even some early block 2' Super Hornets ( Lot 26-28 ) still initially had APG73's until they got APG79 refits

 

I would imagine an APG79 AESA radar would overall be superior to the APG70, except for maybe absolute maximum detection ranges?

 

Unless we are talking the APG82 AESA that some F15E's have recieving in the last couple years, but is not yet standard across all SE's?

 

 

I was talking about the SE's APG70 over the Legacy Hornet's 73. This is from an F-15E Pilot/WSO in RB's discord:

 

"The APG-70 has a true SAR Hi Res patch match capability that the F-16 and -18 do not. I don't claim to be a radar or tron expert - but my understanding is the -16 and -18 radars use a Poor Man's trick using EXP to take a hi res snapshot. But they are nowhere near the fidelity of the SE's SAR maps. It's almost Google Earth Satellite quality."

 

 

This was mostly in reply to kaoqumba original message btw.

We have heard people talk about the apg73 radar we use. The imaging accuracy of SAR is comparable to that of F15E. But the performance in the video is more like a further amplification of exp2. It is far from reaching the "satellite photo level" imaging effect of SAR imaging. The radar echo of the object still appears to be a highlight point without the contour of the object. Is that the end result? Or is EXP3 still in WIP stage strictly speaking?

Edited by FoxOne007

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the SE's APG70 over the Legacy Hornet's 73. This is from an F-15E Pilot/WSO in RB's discord:

 

"The APG-70 has a true SAR Hi Res patch match capability that the F-16 and -18 do not. I don't claim to be a radar or tron expert - but my understanding is the -16 and -18 radars use a Poor Man's trick using EXP to take a hi res snapshot. But they are nowhere near the fidelity of the SE's SAR maps. It's almost Google Earth Satellite quality."

 

 

This was mostly in reply to kaoqumba original message btw.

 

THe F16's APG58 V5 doesnt have SAR/EXP3 to begin with. It was only ever limited to DBS/ EX1 and EXP2.

 

One must also consider that the APG70 quality of SAR itself depends on the timeframe. The SE APG70 got upgrades that improved its SAR map quality from " high resolution to " super high resolution" circa 1997ish and onwards. I cant recall exactly how much resolution was further improved atm. IL have to dig up that particular whitepaper.

 

 

So even then it depends. Would be unreasonable to think APG73 Phase 2 at least near peer to old APG70 mapping quality, especially when APG73 had technology and parts commonality revived from it? OR perhaps we are only looking at the APG73 phase 1 only as a comparison, which fits that explanation why it would be limited and something of a "poor mans " sar trick.

 

to quote:

 

"incorporates a motion-sensing subsystem with reconnaissance software, a stretch waveform generator module, and a special test equipment instrumentation and reconnaissance module. With these enhancements, the F/A-18 aircraft will have the hardware capability to make high-resolution radar ground maps comparable with those of the F-15E, and U2 aircraft to be able to perform precision strike missions using advanced image correlation algorithms."

 

Various sources outside the manufacture also state along these lines. Improved quality SAR, and new additional RECCE Spotlight ans strip map modes although i have not been able to verify which legacies got Phase 2 upgrades, but certainly that 1998 was when it was finishing final evaluation in first phase 2's were being issued in 1999. Final APG73 to delivered was in 2006.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was one of those "nits" that was apparently "whinging about it" so I will go ahead and outline my reasoning behind wanting the ground radar prioritized.

 

In real life modern air operations, we have a lot of highly networked assets that can build a shockingly decent picture of where ground forces are at any given time. We have JSTARS, we have ground assets with datalink setups that can talk to SADL and link 16. We have drones, and we have satellites. All of this stuff helps a pilot in a multi-role aircraft to point their targeting pod on the right stretch of ground to see the target. With all that put into consideration, said multi-role aircraft's ground radar is obviously less important.

 

DCS doesn't have a lot of that. We don't have JSTARS. We don't have a massive command and control network tied into all kinds of different assets. We can certainly make missions where we can imply (via briefing text and such) how we know where fixed forces are but we don't really have the required assets or the complete datalink setup needed to do this kind of thing organically in the mission itself (at least not without some very artificial feeling scripting). This is where ground radar that is normally less useful in real life suddenly becomes more useful in the sim. It won't be a magic bullet that solves all the problems but it does allow aircraft like the F-16, F/A-18, and JF-17 to locate enemy forces more easily as long as they have a very, very rough idea of what direction to look.

 

Let's put this into a practical example. In the past ten or so years of making missions for DCS, I have always run into a problem where I can't just have players hunt for enemy ground targets (especially moving ones) without pretty specifically guiding them to exactly where they need to be. The targeting pod is a great tool but only if you have a pretty good idea of where exactly you need to point it. The TGP isn't a search tool. It isn't something you would use to sweep large areas. Since we have not had access to modern multi-role level ground radar until the release of the JF-17, I have had to find sometimes rather convoluted ways to avoid mission types that require players to actually search for targets without knowing pretty much exactly where they are in advance.

 

Now, you could argue that I could do some stuff via triggers or scripting but I tend to feel that such methods result in a artificial, "gamey" feel for the mission. I like using the sim's existing systems and structure whenever possible.

 

When the JF-17 came out, I suddenly had the option to do missions where players actually have the means to search for ground units. Suddenly they can locate a group of three or four moving vehicles rather quickly even without being led directly to them via waypoints. Now they can use the targeting pod and ground radar together to quickly locate and target units without having to waste a ton of time trying to eyeball a few specks moving along a open field or desert.

 

As I said before, if DCS were to get JSTARS and more fleshed out datalink setups, the ground radar on a individual Viper or Hornet would become less important (as it has in real life) but we don't have those things so ground radar becomes a important part of target acquisition.

 

If you want to do a experiment that kinda highlights what I am talking about (assuming you own either the Hornet or Viper and the JF-17), make a simple scenario where you kinda haphazardly place a handful of BMP's (or something) in the open desert on the Persian Gulf map. don't pay too much attention to where you put them exactly (so you don't easily get to cheat) but make sure they are moving in a large, somewhat confusing pattern. Make sure you place a waypoint in the (very) general direction of the area these ground units are operating (because that would make sense).

 

Now, hop in a Viper/Hornet and use your own eyes and the targeting pod to find this group without knowing exactly where they are. You might eventually find them but it will take a while. You will have to really use your eyes because the "soda straw" view from the targeting pod isn't going to give you a lot to work with.

 

Next, hop in the JF-17 and enable GMT mode on the ground radar. It will not take long at all for a few blips to pop up that you can lock on to. From there, your targeting pod can be slaved directly to that point where you can do all the fine targeting you need to do to get weapons on target.

 

That is the value of the ground radar. It isn't a end all, be all sensor that will tell you everything but it is a fantastic way to get a good general idea of where to point your pod without having to waste a lot of time.

 

This post should be pinned on this dang forum. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to detract from the point you are making or go OT as the real issue is of old DCS engine not being able to recognize ground obects.

 

But you yourself said those are legit images of APG73 SAR maps taken specifically from usmc F/A18D's in conjunction with ATARS ( it was stated as much in the paper) , then thats how can be certain the Phase 2 upgrades of radar even if its not explicitly mentioned . I know thats about CIP processing but i simply included the link to the original source it so naysayers here wouldn't claim those were doctored images.

 

Although nowhere explicity stated it was APG73 phase 2, i got there via by deductive reasoning.

 

Phase 2 had software to also make possible use with reconnaissance pods such ATARS or later SHARPS to transmit over SAR map's back over to HQ, in addition to having improved higher resolution sar, rather than "medium resolution SAR"

 

Since the Phase 2 is capable of higher resolution and "recce" additional Spotlight and strip modes. Those images show close zoom level and crisper detail overall not just of objects relative to Then what we have seen so far within DCS.

 

 

 

Again it might be possible that ED has only chosen to model a APG73 Phase 1. Or perhaps A/G is still highly work in progress, since purely from DCS comparisons we can see differences in magnification and Image quality in EXP 3 between what was shown in the video and preceding WIP screenshots.

 

Got it, this makes sense. I guess my point is it's hard to compare the two when half the objects are missing any way. I couldn't discern a big difference in scale between the two examples, just that the DCS one was way too empty.

 

Would be cool to know which phase they went with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some first tries with the new EXP modes

 

 

AS discussed the resolution does get better the closer you get to a given point. Also the angle of which you position your aircraft radar makes an impact on resolution. The radar will automatically jumps out from EXP3, to EXP2, and eventually EXP1, if you get under a certain distances. I can't recall them off the top of my head but this is normal.

 

 

 

 

Setting up a SA2 sam site, they do eventually become spottable close enough and going into EXP2.

 

 

 

0nhIJ5C.jpg

 

 

 

SAR of Beruit coastline

 

 

 

jtWTUb9.jpg


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1cR0FLt.jpg

 

ok now im getting better image but at very close range

 

I don't think the close range issue is really an issue, more of a limitation of the tech it's simulating.

 

Remember, in the time frame when the Air to Ground radar was most useful, you'd be rolling in pretty close with dumb bombs anyway. You'd be close enough to make a final precise targeting adjustment.

 

It's only now with AESA SAR etc that aircraft like the F-35 can make detailed SAR images from standoff ranges, to attack with a stand off weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Why i can't get this thing working properly ? It shows the area so bad.

 

HDoxbcb.jpg

 

bare in mind radar needs doppler shift, target area must be offset left or right.

The black area is basically a blind spot.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was one of those "nits" that was apparently "whinging about it" so I will go ahead and outline my reasoning behind wanting the ground radar prioritized.

 

In real life modern air operations, we have a lot of highly networked assets that can build a shockingly decent picture of where ground forces are at any given time. We have JSTARS, we have ground assets with datalink setups that can talk to SADL and link 16. We have drones, and we have satellites. All of this stuff helps a pilot in a multi-role aircraft to point their targeting pod on the right stretch of ground to see the target. With all that put into consideration, said multi-role aircraft's ground radar is obviously less important.

 

DCS doesn't have a lot of that. We don't have JSTARS. We don't have a massive command and control network tied into all kinds of different assets. We can certainly make missions where we can imply (via briefing text and such) how we know where fixed forces are but we don't really have the required assets or the complete datalink setup needed to do this kind of thing organically in the mission itself (at least not without some very artificial feeling scripting). This is where ground radar that is normally less useful in real life suddenly becomes more useful in the sim. It won't be a magic bullet that solves all the problems but it does allow aircraft like the F-16, F/A-18, and JF-17 to locate enemy forces more easily as long as they have a very, very rough idea of what direction to look.

 

Let's put this into a practical example. In the past ten or so years of making missions for DCS, I have always run into a problem where I can't just have players hunt for enemy ground targets (especially moving ones) without pretty specifically guiding them to exactly where they need to be. The targeting pod is a great tool but only if you have a pretty good idea of where exactly you need to point it. The TGP isn't a search tool. It isn't something you would use to sweep large areas. Since we have not had access to modern multi-role level ground radar until the release of the JF-17, I have had to find sometimes rather convoluted ways to avoid mission types that require players to actually search for targets without knowing pretty much exactly where they are in advance.

 

Now, you could argue that I could do some stuff via triggers or scripting but I tend to feel that such methods result in a artificial, "gamey" feel for the mission. I like using the sim's existing systems and structure whenever possible.

 

When the JF-17 came out, I suddenly had the option to do missions where players actually have the means to search for ground units. Suddenly they can locate a group of three or four moving vehicles rather quickly even without being led directly to them via waypoints. Now they can use the targeting pod and ground radar together to quickly locate and target units without having to waste a ton of time trying to eyeball a few specks moving along a open field or desert.

 

As I said before, if DCS were to get JSTARS and more fleshed out datalink setups, the ground radar on a individual Viper or Hornet would become less important (as it has in real life) but we don't have those things so ground radar becomes a important part of target acquisition.

 

If you want to do a experiment that kinda highlights what I am talking about (assuming you own either the Hornet or Viper and the JF-17), make a simple scenario where you kinda haphazardly place a handful of BMP's (or something) in the open desert on the Persian Gulf map. don't pay too much attention to where you put them exactly (so you don't easily get to cheat) but make sure they are moving in a large, somewhat confusing pattern. Make sure you place a waypoint in the (very) general direction of the area these ground units are operating (because that would make sense).

 

Now, hop in a Viper/Hornet and use your own eyes and the targeting pod to find this group without knowing exactly where they are. You might eventually find them but it will take a while. You will have to really use your eyes because the "soda straw" view from the targeting pod isn't going to give you a lot to work with.

 

Next, hop in the JF-17 and enable GMT mode on the ground radar. It will not take long at all for a few blips to pop up that you can lock on to. From there, your targeting pod can be slaved directly to that point where you can do all the fine targeting you need to do to get weapons on target.

 

That is the value of the ground radar. It isn't a end all, be all sensor that will tell you everything but it is a fantastic way to get a good general idea of where to point your pod without having to waste a lot of time.

 

 

That's actually my guess too as to why the US Navy/Marines didn't really use/train on AG radars in the Hornet, whereas other countries did train on it. I've been told by people in the know that the RCAF did train on the AG radar and it was used. Canada doesn't operate JSTARS or the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...