reported earlier Radar range

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, TobiasA said:

 

So the receiving end does get a hardlock tone if I softlock someone in TWS?
Guess I need to test it in multiplayer...

 

TWS is indeed more likely to drop a track. The benefit of it is mainly maintaining SA since you can keep track of other guys as well while a STT just tracks one guy with all the power we have.

 

No, the receiving end doesn't get any warning if you use TWS till mr. spaamram shows up at his door. How realistic that is depends on the the other guys RWR. 

The main reason you use STT when using weapons is so you can guide the weapon most precisely to where the target is. Not some vague large sphere where the target "might be" as is the case with TWS. But DCS doesn't model any sort of inaccuracies like this or the initial accquisition problems something like a fox3 might have. I.e. If you take your TWS shot, and the target is 1km from where you think it is and 2000 feet higher, your missile will likely just miss at that point. Thats why its not the "preffered" method of doing things. Now, if you have no real choice but to do it can and has been done successfully, but the overall odds are somewhat lower that it works. 

[GGTharos]

31 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

The main reason you use STT when using weapons is so you can guide the weapon most precisely to where the target is. Not some vague large sphere where the target "might be" as is the case with TWS.

 

It's really not that large - a few hundred meters at worst.   And there's nothing in the DCS world to cause problems with this, like the presence of chaff etc.  Even so, you'd be hard pressed to confuse chaff for the actual target, but it could happen if things are done in a timely order. 

 

31 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

If you take your TWS shot, and the target is 1km from where you think it is and 2000 feet higher, your missile will likely just miss at that point.

 

I doubt that the bubble will be that large and even if it was, it fits well within the search bubble if you do a little raster.  While this doesn't happen in DCS, that missile seeker comes on at some 13nm to begin its search and has a 6 degrees iFoV.  There are other problems that can be caused by TWS, but I doubt what you posted is 'it'.

[Harlikwin]

19 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

It's really not that large - a few hundred meters at worst.   And there's nothing in the DCS world to cause problems with this, like the presence of chaff etc.  Even so, you'd be hard pressed to confuse chaff for the actual target, but it could happen if things are done in a timely order. 

 

 

I doubt that the bubble will be that large and even if it was, it fits well within the search bubble if you do a little raster.  While this doesn't happen in DCS, that missile seeker comes on at some 13nm to begin its search and has a 6 degrees iFoV.  There are other problems that can be caused by TWS, but I doubt what you posted is 'it'.

 

Enlighten me?

[TobiasA]

The main problem with TWS is the worse update rate, that is exactly what it is. If you chaff and maneuver, you have a good chance to break a lock, which is less likely to happen in STT.

And this is modelled.

So thanks for the explanation!

[GGTharos]

45 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Enlighten me?

 

Because the aircraft can maneuver in such a way that when the missile attempts to search for it, it receives an update that tells it a different doppler/range/angle gate - based on the doppler gate alone it might cause the missile to miss the target on that search.  We don't know if it'll throw open the gate or try to 'consult' the incoming data again.

This is why high-data rate TWS exists - and despite all of the talk about TWS somehow being unreliable (to the point where it's making it sound like its useless) it has been used successfully in combat to attack two MiG-29s.

[Harlikwin]

39 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

The main problem with TWS is the worse update rate, that is exactly what it is. If you chaff and maneuver, you have a good chance to break a lock, which is less likely to happen in STT.

And this is modelled.

So thanks for the explanation!

 

This is modeled? Seriously? Chaff does something to track files in DCS? 

25 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Because the aircraft can maneuver in such a way that when the missile attempts to search for it, it receives an update that tells it a different doppler/range/angle gate - based on the doppler gate alone it might cause the missile to miss the target on that search.  We don't know if it'll throw open the gate or try to 'consult' the incoming data again.

This is why high-data rate TWS exists - and despite all of the talk about TWS somehow being unreliable (to the point where it's making it sound like its useless) it has been used successfully in combat to attack two MiG-29s.

 

1. I never said it wasn't used, it has, I think I even mentioned that initially. Given the choice to use it or STT?

2. I mean all I said is that it has drawbacks mainly related to having a worse idea where a (presumably) maneuvering target might be, and to my knowledge these are NOT modeled in DCS (aside from maybe the F14). 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Fri13]

22 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

This is why high-data rate TWS exists - and despite all of the talk about TWS somehow being unreliable (to the point where it's making it sound like its useless) it has been used successfully in combat to attack two MiG-29s.

 

We need to as well remember that no matter how people say that chaff is easy to ignore and it drops immediately out of the speed gate because it speed literally stops like 0.2-1 second after release, that every nation fighter is carrying chaff cartridges and selects a various ones depending the possible radar threats. 

If chaff would be so useless as it is spoken here, no one would never use them but come with only flares. (and those again as well be almost useless). 

 

And one scenario doesn't make a case. It is just one evidence among many, but more is required. 

[Kev2go]

On 4/17/2021 at 5:10 PM, Harlikwin said:

Yeah and based on that chart most knowledgeable people should seriously CRINGE at both the F18 and F16 and JF17 numbers relative to everything else.

 

Bottom line, radar range is not some "simple magic number" in the real world, it depends on a lot of things like PRF, target aspect/RCS, radar power, radar noise floor etc.

 

Bottom line the "rule of thumb" when comparing radars of a similar "generation" is to look at the dish diameter. All other things being equal that's gonna tell you the most, because most of the other factors will be equal.

 

Your radar TX power matters getting the signal out there, and while Txmitter power is one thing it is GREATLY amplified by the antenna. So bigger antenna=more gain = more power out at 100nm or whatever.

 

Then that signal has to come on back to the dish. Again, since antennas "work both ways" a bigger antenna will be able to detect a signal from farther away than a small antenna.

 

"technology" yeah this is stuff like signal processing and all that. At best it can dig out some weaker returns, but in general its never gonna make a small antenna into a big antenna. (unless you are talking like current modern tech which is waay past the scope of this discussion).

 

So... Look at the diameter of a an F14 nose, compare that to an F15 nose, and then look at the Viper... This tells you literally everything you need to know. Same with a SU-27 nose, or even more egregiously a Mig31. 

 

There are reasons nations built and operated those giant assed fighters, its so that they could put an Eye of Sauron sized antenna on them.

 

Realistically, the F16 should have amongst the worst radars in the game. Brace yourself for that. It was never built, designed, or even really used as a Big Nose, OCA fighter, precisely because of this. Yes it can carry spamraams and yeet them at a mig29 (similar problems for mr mig29 btw). But a SU-27 of a comparable generation will eat the Vipers lunch every day and twice on Sundays.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even the APG83 AESA, that the F16's are getting, as much of a substantial upgrade in radar technology over the APG68, and in spite of its radar detection boost it too isn't an "eye of sauron" 

 

 

https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2019/53/matecconf_easn2019_04001.pdf

 

More to the point  " when comparing radars of a comparable generation" was its the comparison of the SABR APG83 to the older APG80 in use on F16 block 60. APG80 may be a bit older AESA "tech"  but since it can operate at a higher power due to not having the cooling restrictions of the APG83 ( at least when in a F16) thus even with the same antenna size its estimated to have substantially better detection ranges. But then again the APG83 was designed in mind a as a retrofit option for F16C fleets to work within the structural and power limitations to allow for an easy apg68 replacements without any significant modifications to the aircraft.

 

But yea overall even the APG68 v9 ( and we only have V5)  is not a very impressive radar in terms of detection ranges 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

13 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

Even the APG83 AESA, that the F16's are getting, as much of a substantial upgrade in radar technology over the APG68, and in spite of its radar detection boost it too isn't an "eye of sauron" 

 

 

https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2019/53/matecconf_easn2019_04001.pdf

 

More to the point  " when comparing radars of a comparable generation" was its the comparison of the SABR APG83 to the older APG80 in use on F16 block 60. APG80 may be a bit older AESA "tech"  but since it can operate at a higher power due to not having the cooling restrictions of the APG83 ( at least when op, thus even with the same antenna size its estimated to have substantially better detection ranges. But then again the APG83 was designed in mind a as a retrofit option for F16C fleets to work within the structural and power limitations to allow for an easy apg68 replacements without any significant modifications to the aircraft.

 

 

 

 

See there you go, I'm trying to use rules of thumb and you go throwing engineering papers at it ;)...

Thanks for that paper btw. 

[TobiasA]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb Harlikwin:

 

This is modeled? Seriously? Chaff does something to track files in DCS?

 

I broke lock on incoming 120's with chaffs... I dunno

[Fri13]

21 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

But yea overall even the APG68 v9 ( and we only have V5)  is not a very impressive radar in terms of detection ranges 

 

So would you say that the improvements comes in other things than range increase, like more solid lock because improved processing and sensitivity?

[Harlikwin]

12 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

I broke lock on incoming 120's with chaffs... I dunno

 

That has nothing to do with it. Basically in DCS "chaff" is basically a dice roll, and works like a "flare" for radar guided missiles (which chaff doesn't really do IRL). But since we currently lack things like EW and DECM (track breakers and the like) it has to "perform" those "Functions". 

 

6 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

So would you say that the improvements comes in other things than range increase, like more solid lock because improved processing and sensitivity?

 

Well, the advantage of AESA is that you can basically generate multiple beams to do different things, so basically you can keep a STT lock on a guy (or several guys) while still scanning the battlespace. And you can do other "mean" things by say modulating that "lock" so it basically goes right up to his RWR "reject" limit (Assuming you know where that is) so it doesn't show as an STT type lock, or if you really want LPI, so that your radar doesn't show at all. 

 

Here is some fun LPI stuff done in MACE.
 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Kev2go]

7 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

So would you say that the improvements comes in other things than range increase, like more solid lock because improved processing and sensitivity?

 

I don't think ED would be able to simulate the nuances  of the advantages that V9 over the V5 outside of any slight boosts in detection ranges for A2A modes.

 

V9  however would be a nice upgrade over the V5 in Air to Surface capability as the older APG68's were limited to 2 levels Doppler beam sharping ( what amounts to EXP2, though called DBS2 in the viper) wheras the V9 is now capable of SAR processing and additional EXP modes. being newer tech a screenshot i saw, I think it does come across to have better SAR map than the APG73, so i think in a DCS environment this is where virtual pilots would see the biggest difference.

 

 

The advantages in the digital signal processing and programmable ECCM, radarsoftware , and automation of radars certainly does have a bigger impact when comparing to radars of an older generation.

 

Take theAWG9. ON paper still more powerfull, and larger antenna then the F15's radar, however in practice even though not having as good detection ranges in the most ideal circumstances, most would argue in practice the APG63 V1 or APG70 are overall better radars than the AWG9 due to not having the limitations of old analog pulse dopplers, where the benefits of the "new" digital tech arguably outweigh the extra raw power or larger antenna

Edited April 20, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

11 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

Take theAWG9. ON paper still more powerfull, and larger antenna then the F15's radar, however in practice even though not having as good detection ranges in the most ideal circumstances, most would argue in practice the APG63 V1 or APG70 are overall better radars than the AWG9 due to not having the limitations of old analog pulse dopplers, where the benefits of the "new" digital tech arguably outweigh the extra raw power or larger antenna

 

 

Well, arguably the early versions of the APG63 weren't much to write home about either compared to the AWG-9. However they kept getting upgrades, unlike the AWG-9. And the fact that the AWG-9 served into the 21st century also speaks volumes about benefits of raw power and a big aperture.  

[TobiasA]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb Harlikwin:

 

That has nothing to do with it. Basically in DCS "chaff" is basically a dice roll, and works like a "flare" for radar guided missiles (which chaff doesn't really do IRL). But since we currently lack things like EW and DECM (track breakers and the like) it has to "perform" those "Functions".

 

Of course it is pretty basic, but I also lost lock quite often in TWS, but almost never in STT. Especially when maneuvring, nothing, and chaffing it seems to be quite frequent to lose lock.

I don't wanna talk about jammers in DCS, I'd like to have one but here we are...

[Harlikwin]

Just now, TobiasA said:

 

Of course it is pretty basic, but I also lost lock quite often in TWS, but almost never in STT. Especially when maneuvring, nothing, and chaffing it seems to be quite frequent to lose lock.

I don't wanna talk about jammers in DCS, I'd like to have one but here we are...

 

Jammers are coming supposedly.

 

IDK, certainly you can loose locks if someone notches you, but I've never heard of chaff having anything to do with it.

[TobiasA]

Gerade eben schrieb Harlikwin:

 

Jammers are coming supposedly.

 

IDK, certainly you can loose locks if someone notches you, but I've never heard of chaff having anything to do with it.

 

Probably then the "old habits die hard" thing on my side.

[Kev2go]

23 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Well, arguably the early versions of the APG63 weren't much to write home about either compared to the AWG-9. However they kept getting upgrades, unlike the AWG-9. And the fact that the AWG-9 served into the 21st century also speaks volumes about benefits of raw power and a big aperture.  

 

It only "served" into the 21st century because navy didnt have the budget to upgrade the entire fleet to F14D's which had the APG71. Post cold war the job of tomcats was to become bombcats, and not fleet defence. So the AWG9 was no longer relevant in bombtrucking during the GWOT. The Lantirn and guided muntions on the other hand were.

 

The AWG9 as a analog platform could not so easily, or affordably  be upgraded. Wheras with digital radars you can just upgrade via software ( PSP) or if software becomes limited by hardware, merely swap out the LRU's pertaining to digital signal processing, or more memory for to increase radar capability.

 

 

also it should be noted  early APG63 wasn't fully developed. One would argue it took at least until the APG63 PSP of the F15C for the APG63 to come fully fleshed out into its own.  However by that point the APG63 certainly set a new standard in terms of its new digital tech and LRU simplifications, as all the case studies of the APG65/66/70 look back upon to the APG63 as the new standard of radar development, of that particular generation.

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

3 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

It only "served" into the 21st century because navy didnt have the budget to upgrade the entire fleet to F14D's which had the APG71. Post cold war the job of tomcats was to become bombcats, and not fleet defence. So the AWG9 was no longer relevant in bombtrucking during the GWOT. The Lantirn and guided muntions on the other hand were.

 

The AWG9 as a analog platform could not so easily, or affordably  be upgraded. Wheras with digital radars you can just upgrade via software ( PSP) or if software becomes limited by hardware, merely swap out the LRU's pertaining to digital signal processing, or more memory for to increase radar capability.

 

 

also it should be noted  early APG63 wasn't fully developed. One would argue it took at least until the APG63 PSP of the F15C for the APG63 to come fully fleshed out into its own.  However by that point the APG63 certainly set a new standard in terms of its new digital tech and LRU simplifications, as all the case studies of the APG65/66/70 look back upon to the APG63 as the new standard of radar development.

 

 

 

Yeah agreed on all counts, but if you're gonna compare radar to radar, compare late model APG63's and 70's to the 71 in that case... 

[Kev2go]

14 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah agreed on all counts, but if you're gonna compare radar to radar, compare late model APG63's and 70's to the 71 in that case... 

 

I know the APG71 would be better but thats not the point. Was to appreciate " The advantages in the digital signal processing and programmable ECCM, radar software , and automation of radars certainly does have a very notable impact when comparing to radars of an older generation."

 

that raw detection range isn't everything, and that tech has been a sort of equalizer in capabilities, and that in practice when you don't have the ideal circumstances  You have to deal with flying over land, EW jamming. 

 

In the same way that most AESA radars  in practical real world scenarios are better than most mechanical array radars ( even if comparing to those that on paper would have longer detection ranges) , but to even a larger extent than was comparing the likes of the late model APG63 or APG70 to an AWG9.

 

But sure the APG71 with all the advantages APG70 tech, was the most powerfull mechanical array radar of its generation on a fighter. Like you said not really surpassed in capability in a2a  until APG77 on the F22.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

11 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

I know the APG71 would be better but thats not the point. Was to appreciate " The advantages in the digital signal processing and programmable ECCM, radar software , and automation of radars certainly does have a very notable impact when comparing to radars of an older generation."

 

that raw detection range isn't everything, and that tech has been a sort of equalizer in capabilities, and that in practice when you don't have the ideal circumstances  You have to deal with flying over land, EW jamming. 

 

In the same way that most AESA radars  in practical real world scenarios are better than most mechanical array radars ( even if comparing to those that on paper would have longer detection ranges) , but to even a larger extent than was comparing the likes of the late model APG63 or APG70 to an AWG9.

 

But sure the APG71 with all the advantages APG70 tech, was the most powerfull mechanical array radar of its generation on a fighter. Like you said not really surpassed in capability in a2a  until APG77 on the F22.

 

 

 

 

So since I have your attention, where would rate the JF-17 KJL-7 compared to the APG68v5 and APG73 we have on the hornet in terms of detection ranges. Obviously all are mech scan radars, but how much of an edge would the KJL-7 have processing wise. 

[Kev2go]

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

So since I have your attention, where would rate the JF-17 KJL-7 compared to the APG68v5 and APG73 we have on the hornet in terms of detection ranges. Obviously all are mech scan radars, but how much of an edge would the KJL-7 have processing wise. 

 

 

I think "tech" wise its questionable if the Chinese/Pakistanis better than the APG68 in terms of processing power ( at least on such a small radar), as remember the all the truely "gold standard" hardware/ computer processing firms are American. Granted the APG68 v5 is like late 80s tech, and were not talking 2000s  v9 here, so i would hope it would be better.

 

I mean overall i don't think the Chinese have as good tech as American tech. Also  look at the Jeff's targeting pod. IIRC its like a 2010+ TGP its inferior to a Litening 2 AT from 2003 even within DCS realm.

 

I dont know what the processing power..... Its hard to say exactly. Itss not published. I mean to be honest the JF17 is bigger mystery overall. unlike with many Teen fighters, there isnt even a basic flight manual comparable to basic Dash 1, or Natops  publicly available for it, let alone anything comparable to NATIP or dash 34's. 

 

Even from a purely annecdotal accounts of radar performance. I havent read any JF17 pilots examples. Dont even think any exist that can compare and contrast to other teen series.

 

 

I could very well be wrong But I  wouldn't count on the Jeff to having comparable ranges to APG68. ID think it may be inferior.  I mean even though one might argue having a max radar range of 160 nautical miles is pointless on such a small weak radar, if most of the fighter sized targets you detect are going to be less than 40 Nautical miles, but Jeff is only limited to 80 nautical miles in max radar detection range? why is that? Lower power supply? weaker exiter receiver?

 

Also im not familiar with its A/G modes. like the old apg68 V5 radar is it only limited to Doppler beam sharping?  Or was it supposed to have EXP3/ SAR or something?  because if its the latter  , that would put it a notch above APG68v5 in air to surface capability.

 

Honestly I think that question is too speculative regarding Jeff. I don't know enough about the Jeff for a meaninfull answer.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Kev2go

[nighthawk2174]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Because the aircraft can maneuver in such a way that when the missile attempts to search for it, it receives an update that tells it a different doppler/range/angle gate - based on the doppler gate alone it might cause the missile to miss the target on that search.  We don't know if it'll throw open the gate or try to 'consult' the incoming data again.

This is why high-data rate TWS exists - and despite all of the talk about TWS somehow being unreliable (to the point where it's making it sound like its useless) it has been used successfully in combat to attack two MiG-29s.

It seems to me the main benifit of STT over TWS would be a higher refresh rate as a way to increase PK in the presence of jamming/chaff/notching.  I do agree completely that TWS is not useless the area covered by the seeker when it comes on is going to be significantly larger than errors in location.  Like it just takes jets too long to significantly change the position of their velocity vectors to really build up any large error in the few seconds between TWS updates. 

[deadpool]

On 4/16/2021 at 9:46 PM, Kev2go said:

 

we dont have the APG 65 in the Hornet we have the APG73. and by all accounts between the two the APG73 has been regarded as better radar.  Also keep in minds USAF vipers continued to retain APG68 V5, and not the further refined V9 many that foreign operators did upgrade to

 

so if anything the Hornet should a modest  advantage in detection ranges

 

That's not quite true ..

We are getting the AGM-154 and we are getting the AN/ARC-210 radio.

That is MLU M5.1 stuff.

 

And what came with the M5 OFP? The AN/APG68(9) radar!

 

[Kev2go]

20 hours ago, deadpool said:

That's not quite true ..

We are getting the AGM-154 and we are getting the AN/ARC-210 radio.

That is MLU M5.1 stuff.

 

And what came with the M5 OFP? The AN/APG68(9) radar!

 

 

remember that ED documentation was for a circa 2007ish aircraft ( which would have been tape 4.3)

 

 Some people brought up that 2004 documentations from PACific Command that showed F16C's had AGm154, although the F16 crew chiefs on the forums said it was incorrect which according to most was not officially put into operation until tape 5.1

 

So sure thanks to enough whining from the virtual from the community for AGM154, ED creeps that munition in like the lau88's for agm65.    AN/ARC210 ED has documentation probably from the A10C II which gets it.So  what you end up a hybrid  v4.3 and Tape 5.1 aircraft, rather than a proper Tape 5.1 accurate representation. Remember There were more features from tape 5.1 ( according to F16 net) we dont get all them.

 

 software tapes are merely common between the F16 CCIP  modernized and the European F16A MLU jets. F16A MLU's use upgraded APG66  ( APG66 V2/V2A) radar. However there is nothing that says that USAF upgraded to APG 68v9 with  tape 5.1. After all the APG68v9 radar already existed and being used by foreign operators earlier than that.

 

But furthermore keep in mind only foreign operators use the APG68 v9.  USAF to my knowledge never upgraded the from the APG68v5 to the APG 68v9., due to some budgetary reasons. 

 

IN present date they are gradually upgraded from APG68V5 to APG83 AESA radar

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Kev2go