Searching for proof of underperforming AN/APG-73 radar

[GumidekCZ]

Me and my friends, we think that Hornets radar AN/APG-73 is now underperforming and we are searching to any kind of proof, which can help us to create bug report about it.

I searched for similar topics about AN/APG-73, but didn’t found any, may be due to my stupidness

PLEASE, if you have any materials, RW data, DCS testing ideas which can confirm current radar not performing like it should. Please post it here, I would be very thankful to you. But be careful with what kind of material are you posting here, we don’t want to trigger some forum poclicy issues here.

[Gierasimov]

OK, so assuming you meant entertainment / simulation product (DCS) and not the real thing, I say ED should have such data, they produced it, try reaching out to them maybe.

You and your friends THINK it is underperforming? Have you used it in real life then? Maybe you can provide the insights to ED for their consideration, so that MAYBE all of us can benefit...

Here is an idea for testing:

 

Setup a real F/A-18C against MiG-29A and collect the data on radar work. 

Setup DCS as closely as the real thing and collect the data on simulated radar work. 

Compare results. Post, or don't post rather. 

 

I don't think its underperforming. Its detecting and tracking A2A missiles now. BUT I will not say it is a bug, as I know nothing about radars ins and outs in real life. 

 

[Dunx]

I tested a MiG-19 cold, hot and flanking at various distances... eyes win

[Tom Kazansky]

ok, my suggestion will obviously not show whether DCS works like the real thing or not but to compare radars in DCS setup a mission with airborne start in the direction of incomming planes, let one or more (different) planes fly towards you and press "active pause" right after starting the mission and see when you get a brick/lock. Use a narrow scan area to get results as soon as possible. You then can change your planes and have the similar situation for all tests.

[Riojano]

for me, the 18 radar has to be the an/apg 65, usmc its the only user of the 73, so isnt real for navy or other coutry user.

[Skysurfer]

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The Radar Range Equation.en.html

 

Plug in the values you can find and you'll see. The current one might be underpefroming slightly for a 73 but it is MUCH more realistic than it was previously, where it was basically an F-15C radar. The biggest issue with it in DCS is not the performance itself but the way too low RCS values for larger fighters like the Flanker family, Tomcat and Eagle as well as some other jets. 

 

And even then, unless you have used the real radar in combat and detected various known fighters you simply won't know. Brochure numbers and mathematical estimations are one thing, reality often times another. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Harlikwin]

7 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The Radar Range Equation.en.html

 

Plug in the values you can find and you'll see. The current one might be underpefroming slightly for a 73 but it is MUCH more realistic than it was previously, where it was basically an F-15C radar. The biggest issue with it in DCS is not the performance itself but the way too low RCS values for larger fighters like the Flanker family, Tomcat and Eagle as well as some other jets. 

 

And even then, unless you have used the real radar in combat and detected various known fighters you simply won't know. Brochure numbers and mathematical estimations are one thing, reality often times another. 

 

 

Yeah, exactly this. Currently the issue is that the F16 radar overperforms, probably the jeff too. And things like the eagle and maybe su27 underperform. Also, when looking at "brochure" numbers understand that these are optimistic best case overestimates. And your detection range is gonna vary between modes, VS is gonna be best, then HPRF modes, then MPRF etc. Assuming a hot target. HPRF vs a beaming or cold target isn't gonna work well. 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Shimmergloom667]

18 hours ago, Riojano said:

for me, the 18 radar has to be the an/apg 65, usmc its the only user of the 73, so isnt real for navy or other coutry user.

 

That's wrong

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

742 series should be more then enough

 

If you get the other 4 volumes let me know

[Swift.]

Im curious what the actual root cause of the problem is here. Because I imagine you feel like 'hornets radar isnt powerful enough', but what you should be saying is 'hornet cant target aircraft far enough away'. The second problem has a simple solution: MSI.

[Rom_un]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Does it specify a "mode" for any of that. 

 

I'd also be curious why an APG-65 in a hornet has more range than the same radar in the Harrier II (with a presumably newer software suite). 

 

No specific radar mode is simulated, just operating band (I) and max range.

Here the Hornet has AN/APG-65 with 80nm max range and the Harrier an AN/APG-65(V)2 given with 60nm max range. I supose this is due to max power consuption.

[0xDEADBEEF]

Realistic or not, archairpilot me can't tell, but I can tell that I am incredibly busy making sure I operate it within sane parameters, and still wonder why there is only occasional radar returns, and if I manage to track a target, the track will be long lost before any aim 120 goes active in bvr engagements, and if I make it WVR i have much higher survival chances using my eyeball mk1 ...

[Swift.]

1 hour ago, 0xDEADBEEF said:

Realistic or not, archairpilot me can't tell, but I can tell that I am incredibly busy making sure I operate it within sane parameters, and still wonder why there is only occasional radar returns, and if I manage to track a target, the track will be long lost before any aim 120 goes active in bvr engagements, and if I make it WVR i have much higher survival chances using my eyeball mk1 ...

Tracks fading is more a function of poor track logic in DCS rather than an underperforming radar. If you are only getting occasional returns, keep in mind your radar set frame time. If you have something like 4 bar, 140 azimuth, Interleaved. You could be looking at something like 30 seconds between detections.

[Harlikwin]

16 hours ago, Rom_un said:

No specific radar mode is simulated, just operating band (I) and max range.

Here the Hornet has AN/APG-65 with 80nm max range and the Harrier an AN/APG-65(V)2 given with 60nm max range. I supose this is due to max power consuption.

 

It might be IDK, but that is ALOT less power since power affects detection by the fourth root. 

1 hour ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Tracks fading is more a function of poor track logic in DCS rather than an underperforming radar. If you are only getting occasional returns, keep in mind your radar set frame time. If you have something like 4 bar, 140 azimuth, Interleaved. You could be looking at something like 30 seconds between detections.

 

Yup.

IRL if you want good "tracks" on something you narrow the scan volume down as much as is feasible. In most jets "track quality" is a thing as well, and there are "weapon grade" tracks and just tracks. Part of the reason TWS isn't used as much IRL is for reasons like these, though it can be, but you need good quality tracks for weapons employment solution.  But in DCS your track file is always perfect. 

Also IIRC the hornet has a longer range if narrow down the search volumes, that might even a whole mode in and of itself. Not sure if thats currently in the ED hornet.

 

[Kev2go]

21 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Does it specify a "mode" for any of that. 

 

I'd also be curious why an APG-65 in a hornet has more range than the same radar in the Harrier II (with a presumably newer software suite). 

 

 

the radar dish of the APG65 had to be downsized to fit  into the nose of the av8B. SO whatever the RL detection numbers may be i would still bet on the APG65 equipped hornet have had a slight advantage

Edited June 9, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

3 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

the radar dish of the APG65 had to be downsized to fit  into the nose of the av8B. SO whatever the RL detection numbers may be i would still bet on the APG65 equipped hornet have had a slight advantage

 

 

Now that is interesting to know. Thanks kev. 

[Kev2go]

7 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Now that is interesting to know. Thanks kev. 

 

But like you said radar uses newer software, considering that all Hornets eventually had APG65's phased out for APG73's, and all those old surplus AGP65's were what went to the av8b Plus program.. Plus ( pun not intended)  its also possible that Av8B also had certain hardware components replaced through the supply chain. So eventually  Av8b APG65's would basically become APG73 Phase 1's, once  other 3 excess APG73 parts ( the exiter/reciever, Target signal data processing component , and power supply)  would trickle down through the supply chain

 

Which makes things not so easy to ascertain.

 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-96-49.pdf

 

 

to quote from page 8

 

" In a March 11, 1994, Acquisition Decision Memorandum, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology concurred with the Navy’s approach to accelerate the F-18 radar upgrade from APG-65 to APG-73 radars in order to provide the resulting excess APG-65 radar assets for the REMAN program. Three of the six basic components that make up the APG-65 radar system are common to the F-18’s APG-73 radar and will remain in use in the F-18 aircraft. The remaining three components (the radar receiver/exciter, target data processor, and computer power supply) will become excess assets available to the REMAN program."

Edited June 9, 2021 by Kev2go

[Hulkbust44]

 
 

Also IIRC the hornet has a longer range if narrow down the search volumes, that might even a whole mode in and of itself. Not sure if thats currently in the ED hornet.
 

That was cited as a bug as part of the DCS Hornet's previous extreme detection range.


Mobius708

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

But like you said radar uses newer software, considering that all Hornets eventually had APG65's phased out for APG73's, and all those old surplus AGP65's were what went to the av8b Plus program.. Plus ( pun not intended)  its also possible that Av8B also had certain hardware components replaced through the supply chain. So eventually  Av8b APG65's would basically become APG73 Phase 1's, once  other 3 excess APG73 parts ( the exiter/reciever, Target signal data processing component , and power supply)  would trickle down through the supply chain

 

Which makes things not so easy to ascertain.

 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-96-49.pdf

 

 

to quote from page 8

 

" In a March 11, 1994, Acquisition Decision Memorandum, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology concurred with the Navy’s approach to accelerate the F-18 radar upgrade from APG-65 to APG-73 radars in order to provide the resulting excess APG-65 radar assets for the REMAN program. Three of the six basic components that make up the APG-65 radar system are common to the F-18’s APG-73 radar and will remain in use in the F-18 aircraft. The remaining three components (the radar receiver/exciter, target data processor, and computer power supply) will become excess assets available to the REMAN program."

 

 

Yeah I get that they did that too. 

 

Plus some folks seem to think the APG-73 is from the 80's or early 90's. I forget the entire set of designations for all the upgrades the 73 got, but the version we have is like APG-73 Phase2 RUG3 or some other acronym malarkey, but point being its an early 2000's radar, compared to say the KJL-7 which is like 2005, so really not "more modern". 

[Kev2go]

the phase 2 IIRC was specifically addressed  improving A/G capabilities specifically around the SAR resolution.

 

However USN Hornets do not make full potential use of the phase 2 upgrades, as they do not use more advanced Software the USMC  F/A18D's for thier recon role, when Using the ATARS pod. Thats probably where the "comparable to F15E SAR mapping "  claim comes from. Wheras the navy didn't have such requirements , and thus superior A/G mapping  improvements wasn't a thing  for the Navy until the APG79 on Block 2 Super Hornets. 

 

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah I get that they did that too. 

 

Plus some folks seem to think the APG-73 is from the 80's or early 90's. I forget the entire set of designations for all the upgrades the 73 got, but the version we have is like APG-73 Phase2 RUG3 or some other acronym malarkey, but point being its an early 2000's radar, compared to say the KJL-7 which is like 2005, so really not "more modern". 

 

Id also thrown in the date of introduction doesn't necessarily matter, but the level of technology. I mean you look at the sort of Radars Russians had for the Mig29/SU27, and are primitive compared to the generation of radars US had in the 80s. Hell they weren't even planar araay.

 

You also look at the KJL-7 and for example its max radar range is only to 80NM, not 160.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

3 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

Id also thrown in the date of introduction doesn't necessarily matter, but the level of technology. I mean you look at the sort of Radars Russians had for the Mig29/SU27, and are primitive compared to the generation of radars US had in the 80s. Hell they weren't evne planar araay.

 

You also look at the KJL-7 and for example its max radar range is only to 80NM, not 160.

 

And I was simply making the point the "state of technology" steadily advanced. So like what year matters to a point, if you are doing a 1991 hornet, the radar is not the same as a 2005 one. They were kept up-to-date. 

 

As for planar array, well the inverse cassegrain antenna they used did work even if its kinda funky. And if read about the "half" PESA hybrid thing they wanted to put into the SU-27 in the first place it gets even weirder. 

[Seaeagle]

38 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

And I was simply making the point the "state of technology" steadily advanced. So like what year matters to a point, if you are doing a 1991 hornet, the radar is not the same as a 2005 one.

Obviously not - a 1991 Hornet had the APG-65, while from 1993 onwards they got the APG-73.

 

I don't know how steadily the technology advanced - aside from the step from APG-65 to APG-73(phase I RUG) from Lot 16, there is only one other(Phase II RUG) introduced with the Lot 20, that we got in DCS and, as Kev2go said, this specifically concerned enhanced A2G mapping(only). 

 

 

 

[BMGZ06]

Ya I noticed the F18's radar wasn't working very well...then I remembered I had to turn it on. All good now.

Edited June 10, 2021 by BMGZ06

[GumidekCZ]

Could this performance for APG-73 be from RW, or close to real?

https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/15964-rafale-vs-gripen?page=7

APG-73 (F/A-18E/F, Block1) - (from Block2 was eqiped with APG-79 AESA)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+ ???
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 10~11 km+ (5.5-6.1nm)->in DCS 5,5nm RWS / 3.0nm FLANK / 3.0nm BEAM (10nm ACM all)
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 32~36 km+  (18-20nm)->in DCS 17.5nm HOT /9.5nm FLANK /9.5nm BEAM
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 56~64 km+ (30-35,5nm)->in DCS 31nm /31nm FLANK /31nm BEAM
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 84~96 km+ (46.6-53,3nm)->in DCS 47nm HOT / 47 FLANK / 47nm BEAM
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 100~114 km+ (55.5-63nm)->in DCS 56nm HOT / 56 FLANK / 52nm BEAM

 

DCS values checked by me, editing RCS values and than testing at 36000 ft, targets 2000 ft higher alt than me in Hornet. Scan zone AZ20° 1BAR. INT and HI PRF.

Acording to values given from link page, DCS APG-73 is in average some 6% bellow average detection distance... which is far better than I was expecting.

 

Big question now is the RCS values of each aircraft type in DCS.

Edited June 10, 2021 by GumidekCZ

[Harker]

1 hour ago, GumidekCZ said:

Big question now is the RCS values of each aircraft type in DCS.

 

Yep, that's the main issue at this point.