reported earlier Radar range

[SCPanda]

On 4/18/2021 at 8:36 PM, 104th_Blaze said:

 

Tbh I can't picture a good Viper driver in DCS using TWS more than ~ 20% of the time. RWS is just far superior. The only time you're using TWS is to build picture and multi target.

 

The Hornet is another story.. but in my opinion the whole avionics implementation of the Hornet is the absolute worst possible. It is literally the polar opposite of good user interface. Picture the things you can do in other fighters by passively looking at a display or pressing 1 button. In the Hornet you have to push 16 buttons to achieve the same result.

 

To share my experience of playing on PVP BVR servers flying the Viper, I use TWS almost all the time in the Viper for consistent tracking, because in the Viper's AA radar modes are still WIP, SAM mode does not automatically adjust radar elevation so if the bandit or me changes altitude drastically, SAM mode will actually lose the lock. TWS mode however adjusts the radar elevation automatically and it actually provides better tracking than SAM mode (I know this is unrealistic but this is how it works in DCS in the current state). BUT I do not use TWS to find the target, because it takes forever! RWS is much faster, so I usually use RWS to find the target, TMS up once to lock it in SAM mode, and then immediately TMS right long to track it in TWS. After an engagement, or I broke the lock due to defensive maneuver or bandit notching, I TMS down and use RWS to reacquire the target. 

 

In close range engagement however, I just use RWS+SAM mode since the fights take place very quick. You have to fire, defend, and notch the incoming missiles fast, so there is no time to switch my radar to TWS tracking. Also Aim-120 goes pitbull almost immediately in close range there is no need to track the bandit for that long. 

 

Also I never use STT since it basically tells the bandit you are tracking him and it also give him missile launch warnings. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by SCPanda

[SCPanda]

7 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

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 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.

 

 

 

 

 

JF-17 block 3 now has AESA. It's a pretty capable small jet in BVR now. Of course that's not the block we have in DCS.

[Kev2go]

5 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

JF-17 block 3 now has AESA. It's a pretty capable small jet in BVR now. Of course that's not the block we have in DCS.

 

yea of course within context of DCS we were taking about the Mech radar of the current version of the Jeff , not the AESA radar of the newer block.

 

Then again  F16's are  set to be gradually being refitted with APG83, A few ANG Vipers already are flying with them.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Kev2go

[TAW_Blaze]

7 hours ago, SCPanda said:

To share my experience of playing on PVP BVR servers flying the Viper, I use TWS almost all the time in the Viper for consistent tracking, because in the Viper's AA radar modes are still WIP, SAM mode does not automatically adjust radar elevation so if the bandit or me changes altitude drastically, SAM mode will actually lose the lock. TWS mode however adjusts the radar elevation automatically and it actually provides better tracking than SAM mode (I know this is unrealistic but this is how it works in DCS in the current state). BUT I do not use TWS to find the target, because it takes forever! RWS is much faster, so I usually use RWS to find the target, TMS up once to lock it in SAM mode, and then immediately TMS right long to track it in TWS. After an engagement, or I broke the lock due to defensive maneuver or bandit notching, I TMS down and use RWS to reacquire the target. 

 

In close range engagement however, I just use RWS+SAM mode since the fights take place very quick. You have to fire, defend, and notch the incoming missiles fast, so there is no time to switch my radar to TWS tracking. Also Aim-120 goes pitbull almost immediately in close range there is no need to track the bandit for that long. 

 

Also I never use STT since it basically tells the bandit you are tracking him and it also give him missile launch warnings. 

 

 

This is wrong, SAM will automatically follow the target altitude. I'm not even sure why you would think that it does not.. there is a bug that will sometimes throw your lock away and cut the display range in half, but that has nothing to do with elevation. I'd say this was working since day 1 of Viper release.. otherwise you wouldn't even be able to pull off a basic F-pole since as soon as you dive you'd lose lock since the required antenna elevation changes by anything between 20 to 50 degrees.

 

The elevation caret display might be out of sync though, I noticed at least that when you're in a dive/climb it will display inaccurate data (i.e. picture diving at 20kft against a bandit still at 40kft around 20 miles, for sure your radar has to be pointing up, however it typically shows centered elevation caret).

[dundun92]

23 hours ago, Fri13 said:

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). 

That doesnt mean its super effective. All it means is that chaff + evasive maneuvers + likely ECM is better than evasive maneuvers/ECM alone, enough to warrant carrying it. But that doesnt mean its particularly effective on its own, or that even when combined with maneuvers its guaranteed to defeat the track or something (not saying your claiming that BTW). Also, slightly OT but if pyrotechnic flares were really so effective vs modern FPA dont ya think they're kinda wasting money thats being spent into DIRCM and other new forms of CMs?

[GGTharos]

IMHO the current flares should only be effective against FPA seekers if employed to seduce the seeker before lock-on to the target aircraft.   After that, you better have one seriously prancin' dancin' modern flare, which none of our DCS aircraft carry and I don't know if there's such a thing available IRL.

 

It's not impossible for a huge batch of flares to do bad things to an FPA seeker, but we're talking patterns and quantities that don't apply to the little fighters we fly - again, need a much different type of flare.  IMHO.

[SCPanda]

15 hours ago, 104th_Blaze said:

I'd say this was working since day 1 of Viper release.. 

 

Nope it wasn't, I have tested for several times when bandit goes defensive and dive from high altitude to low altitude, SAM always lost lock. TWS did not. 

[TAW_Blaze]

12 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Nope it wasn't, I have tested for several times when bandit goes defensive and dive from high altitude to low altitude, SAM always lost lock. TWS did not. 

 

Co-altitude at 40kft, 25 miles, hot target dives to the deck at 60 degrees and SAM has absolutely 0 problem tracking him until you run out of elevation limit (about 6 miles). If the target dives at 80 degrees SAM will lose lock faster, but TWS will also lose lock.. I suspect TWS might have a longer memory which results in that.

[F-2]

Chinese translation of Society of experimental test pilots paper on apg-68(v)9. Explains a bit how it works vs older versions and how it gains that range (and thus why older versions might lack. Recommend google lense..

https://m.doc88.com/p-7035489262127.html#

[Pavlin_33]

On 4/20/2021 at 8:52 PM, 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.

Truth be told, those two 120 hits were made fairly close. I can't remember the exact distances though. Also while the MiGs were on the deck, Eagles' radars picked up only one target only to realise there were 2 once they climbed out of the ground clutter and/or got closer.

P.S. First 120 missed its target

 

[GGTharos]

14nm.  They hit when the MiG-29's were 8nm away.   There aren't a whole lot of documented longer range shots IRL, if any.

As for the first missing, I don't recall that.  3  missiles were launched (a single by the wingman) and there's no information about how many hit (obviously two, possibly all three).

[Pavlin_33]

On 8/6/2023 at 6:32 PM, GGTharos said:

14nm.  They hit when the MiG-29's were 8nm away.   There aren't a whole lot of documented longer range shots IRL, if any.

As for the first missing, I don't recall that.  3  missiles were launched (a single by the wingman) and there's no information about how many hit (obviously two, possibly all three).

Longest 120 kill I could find was made at 36nm by "Rico" in the Eagle against a non-maneuvering Fulcrum, first day of '99 campaign.

First AMRAAM definitely missed as was confirmed by both, now late, 29 driver that was defending it and the Russian troops on the ground that were monitoring the engagement. Only person that got credited the kills was the Eagle flight lead who fired 2 120s in TWS. 1st one was fired by number 2 in STT, I believe.

Most interesting thing for me was that the 15s could not resolve 2 contacts at some 25nm flying at 6000 feet in a look-down. F-15s were in the mid 20's.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Pavlin_33