Searching for proof of underperforming AN/APG-73 radar

[TLTeo]

We don't know where the values for the Jeff will land (but hopefully it will be reasonable). The Tomcat should be fine, the Mirage is fine but it's slated for a major rework of the radar to be more realistic, who knows with FC3, the Hornet could use a small upgrade.

And also, detection range isn't everything. The AWG-9 is really good at it, but it sucks at holding tracks if both the own ship and target are maneuvering violently, while more modern radars don't have as much of a problem with that.

Edited November 4, 2021 by TLTeo

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

MiG-21 radar shows clouds if you leave the weather filter off.

Aren't these just randomly generated though? They don't actually correspond to clouds and in general the RADAR is simplified (though I thought it was supposed to be upgraded?)

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

We don't know where the values for the Jeff will land (but hopefully it will be reasonable). The Tomcat should be fine, the Mirage is fine but it's slated for a major rework of the radar to be more realistic, who knows with FC3, the Hornet could use a small upgrade.

And also, detection range isn't everything. The AWG-9 is really good at it, but it sucks at holding tracks if both the own ship and target are maneuvering violently, while more modern radars don't have as much of a problem with that.

 

Deka just posted that they are redoing the jeff radar to include rcs aspect... 

ETA, duh someone just posted that... lol. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Harlikwin

[WarbossPetross]

9 часов назад, TLTeo сказал:

On a semi related note,

looks like the Jeff is getting its radar performance normalized to other fighters which is nice. Looks like radars are more or less getting tuned in the right direction.

 

After the update TWS contacts are somewhat harder to acquire with the Jeff radar and break track with hard maneuvers (yours or theirs) at over 40 miles distance, and that's against the sky. You may test in the BVR quick mission.

[Joe Miller]

On 11/3/2021 at 8:19 PM, TLTeo said:

We don't know where the values for the Jeff will land (but hopefully it will be reasonable). The Tomcat should be fine, the Mirage is fine but it's slated for a major rework of the radar to be more realistic, who knows with FC3, the Hornet could use a small upgrade.

And also, detection range isn't everything. The AWG-9 is really good at it, but it sucks at holding tracks if both the own ship and target are maneuvering violently, while more modern radars don't have as much of a problem with that.

 

Its not anything to do with being "less modern." The tomcat's radar is currently one of the best a2a radars in dcs if you know how to use it well (which is quite a challenge). When it comes to range and mechanically scanned arrays, its extremely hard to get around a smaller antenna and lower transmit power, like in the f18 and f16 (the viper's antenna is also non circular, which adds its own quirks from what I understand). Its just always going to be a major fundamental limitation. According to a few people here, the APG-68 also doesnt use HPRF in TWS or RWS, so all these things together account for the lack of detection range in comparison to something like a tomcat.

 

Also, loosing track in TWS while doing violent maneuvers is a problem for pretty much EVERY mechanically scanned radar until you get to a PESA/AESA, or the absolute best mechanical radars (eg. the eurofighter). Apparently, the jeff also shows this quirk now. Either way, im just happy that radars in dcs are slowly becoming a lot more realistic (no idea about any of the fc3 radars tho :D)

[Hazardpro]

On 11/3/2021 at 3:56 AM, WarbossPetross said:

In DCS radar code simulates target RCS

DCS "simulates" target RCS by looking up a single value from a table that's often not even realistic. I don't want to make this thread into competition between sims but I expect the other one to do at least that much. 

[falcon_120]

On 11/3/2021 at 4:57 PM, GGTharos said:

You shouldn't expect to see a fighter on radar much past 40nm in either the hornet or the viper.   As for Su-27's and Su-33 locks from afar - they may in fact not even be locking you, but that's a DCS AI thing.

 

Basically yes, but SU27 is a big airplane, I'm sure it can be detected up to 50nm based on some anecdotical evidence (Spanish f18 with the APG65 detecting other f18s at 45ish nm during interceptions drills).

We are talking about subtle corrections though, they new changes by ED are far better than previous situations.

[hein22]

6 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Basically yes, but SU27 is a big airplane, I'm sure it can be detected up to 50nm based on some anecdotical evidence (Spanish f18 with the APG65 detecting other f18s at 45ish nm during interceptions drills).

We are talking about subtle corrections though, they new changes by ED are far better than previous situations.

For an SU27 you're looking at a detection range of 65nm aprox. It is above 10sm RCS.

[Harlikwin]

10 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Basically yes, but SU27 is a big airplane, I'm sure it can be detected up to 50nm based on some anecdotical evidence (Spanish f18 with the APG65 detecting other f18s at 45ish nm during interceptions drills).

We are talking about subtle corrections though, they new changes by ED are far better than previous situations.

 

The other big factor for RCS thats not in DCS or any other sim is the effect of stores on RCS. Pretty much every RCS calc/chart/diagram I've seen are of a clean airplane, not one with stores/pylons, which can add significantly to RCS as I understand it. 

A clean Viper with 2-wingtip missiles is gonna be close to whatever published RCS, one carrying a few tons of bombs, missiles, tanks, TGP's etc (i.e what actually gets flown in DCS) is gonna be much larger I imagine. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Harlikwin

[hein22]

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

The other big factor for RCS thats not in DCS or any other sim is the effect of stores on RCS. Pretty much every RCS calc/chart/diagram I've seen are of a clean airplane, not one with stores/pylons, which can add significantly to RCS as I understand it. 

A clean Viper with 2-wingtip missiles is gonna be close to whatever published RCS, one carrying a few tons of bombs, missiles, tanks, TGP's etc (i.e what actually gets flown in DCS) is gonna be much larger I imagine. 

 

Yes that's right. That should not be any difficult to code, a simple relation between the current RCS values (although they need a fix) and whatever the plane has selected for weapons must do the trick. Just a simple factor without any complex calculation, at least a sum of n quantity if the plane isn't clean.

[Harlikwin]

57 minutes ago, hein22 said:

Yes that's right. That should not be any difficult to code, a simple relation between the current RCS values (although they need a fix) and whatever the plane has selected for weapons must do the trick. Just a simple factor without any complex calculation, at least a sum of n quantity if the plane isn't clean.

"simple" I guess, but we can't even get good numbers for stores/pylon drag...

[hein22]

9 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

"simple" I guess, but we can't even get good numbers for stores/pylon drag...

Yeah, that's sad I know. I guess they're just not interested.

What worries me the most is that we have now a "realistic" radar with "realistic" detection ranges but with completely wrong RCS values. Just imagine what would happen if they correct those RCS values... Radars would break again.

[Harlikwin]

37 minutes ago, hein22 said:

Yeah, that's sad I know. I guess they're just not interested.

What worries me the most is that we have now a "realistic" radar with "realistic" detection ranges but with completely wrong RCS values. Just imagine what would happen if they correct those RCS values... Radars would break again.

Well... in theory the radar range is at least partly influenced by RCS, and TBH since RCS in the radar equation with the 4th root its not like that huge of a deal in terms of detection range. Double RCS isn't double detection range. Like going from 5m2 rcs to 10m2 rcs will give you like 15% more range, not double. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Harlikwin

[hein22]

12 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Well... in theory the radar range is at least partly influenced by RCS, and TBH since RCS in the radar equation with the 4th root its not like that huge of a deal in terms of detection range. Double RCS isn't double detection range. Like going from 5m2 rcs to 10m2 rcs will give you like 15% more range, not double. 

 

Yeah, right. Although I am not aware of how deviated they are now versus the actual values. I think I read something above about them having quite a big difference.

[Harlikwin]

27 minutes ago, hein22 said:

Yeah, right. Although I am not aware of how deviated they are now versus the actual values. I think I read something above about them having quite a big difference.

There is a good 360 of a mig29 RCS out there on the web somewhere. Shows the variation isn't as huge as some people think. I havent seen anything about stores ( haven't look that hard either), but you could imagine some things being very good "corner" reflectors. Then there is the aus air power J-20 RCS study from a decade or so back.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GumidekCZ]

Found this source of interesting radar detection capabilities gathered by JANES:
removed link

Dont forget to read first 2 pages. (Middle detection Range number is for RCS 5m2 - in DCS equals F/A-18C, F-15, F-5, AV-8B, MiG-29) ALL RANGES ARE IN NAUTICAL MILES!

More can be found if you know the name of radar. Sadly, Janes does not mention specific versions for all radars.

RCS [sq m]: ( 100 / 20 / 5 / 0.1 / 0.01 )

F/A-18C APG-73 ( 160 / 113 / 84 / 36 / 11 ) in DCS not 84 nm, but only around 47 nm. This is way more than ED giving us. With these values it makes sense of having 160nm radar scale. I think ED intentionaly reduced all radar ranges (NOT the 3rd parties like Deka) with aim of keeping DCS performance high and low hardware requirements.

Data comes originaly from this page, but cant be reached for free or are restricted.https://www.janes.com/

I really would like to report this as bug, but I guess, because of above mention reasons, detection ranges will not change, no matter what.

Edited January 23, 2022 by GumidekCZ
removed link

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, GumidekCZ said:

 I think ED intentionaly reduced all radar ranges (NOT the 3rd parties like Deka) with aim of keeping DCS performance high and low hardware requirements.

Data comes originaly from this page, but cant be reached for free  or are restricted.https://www.janes.com/

I really would like to report this as bug, but I guess, because of above mention reasons, detection ranges will not change, no matter what.

you are talking nonsense, evidence based, if we have evidence to look at we will look at it, but making comments like this does not help.  

Edit: 

I have removed the download link as the information is supposed to be paywalled and we don't want to infringe on their copyright

[WobblyFlops]

4 hours ago, GumidekCZ said:

Found this source of interesting radar detection capabilities gathered by JANES:

There's absolutely no chance that the data you're referencing is accurate. There's no way in hell that the 68 or the 73 (or god forbit the 65) have a comparable performance to the APG-70 or the AWG-9. Not to mention that empirical testing of an early version of the APG-63 also shows drastically better performance that what's depicted in those chars. 

[GGTharos]

6 hours ago, GumidekCZ said:

F/A-18C APG-73 ( 160 / 113 / 84 / 36 / 11 ) in DCS not 84, but only around 47 nm. This is way more than ED giving us. With these values it makes sense of having 160nm radar scale. I think ED intentionaly reduced all radar ranges (NOT the 3rd parties like Deka) with aim of keeping DCS performance high and low hardware requirements.

Now take an educated guess at how 84km translates to nm

[Harlikwin]

On 1/21/2022 at 7:58 AM, GGTharos said:

Now take an educated guess at how 84km translates to nm

[equinox137]

Here is a perfect example of why the Hornet radar is worthless. 

Marianas Map, AWACS sees 2 Mig-29 contacts flying over open sea in clear weather at angels 10, 60 miles from me according to AWACS bogey dope.   I am at angels 33, my radar is on TWS 4bar, PRF is on medium, antenna pointed slightly down-angle, scanning 80 miles out, 40 degree sweep, time out is at 16. and the contacts are flanking at my 1 o'clock.  TDC Top caret says 40, bottom caret says -5 with a distance of 56.1 nm according to the datalink....and my radar CAN'T SEE the 2 contacts? Seriously?  There is no reason this radar shouldn't at least see these two contacts.

The technobabble of the last 5 pages notwithstanding, the end product is that this radar doesn't work.  I'm hoping to God that pilots IRL don't have to trust their lives to this absolute junk or that DCS has the APG-73 extremely under-performing in the simulation.  Truth is, I've had better luck not using this radar at all.

Edited January 22, 2022 by equinox137

[Tholozor]

13 minutes ago, equinox137 said:

Here is a perfect example of why the Hornet radar is worthless. 

Marianas Map, AWACS sees 2 Mig-29 contacts flying over open sea in clear weather at angels 10, 60 miles from me according to AWACS bogey dope.   I am at angels 33, my radar is on TWS 4bar, PRF is on medium, antenna pointed slightly down-angle, scanning 80 miles out, 40 degree sweep, time out is at 16. and the contacts are flanking at my 1 o'clock.  TDC Top caret says 40, bottom caret says -5 with a distance of 56.1 nm according to the datalink....and my radar CAN'T SEE the 2 contacts? Seriously?  There is no reason this radar shouldn't at least see these two contacts.

The technobabble of the last 5 pages notwithstanding, the end product is that this radar doesn't work.  I'm hoping to God that pilots IRL don't have to trust their lives to this absolute junk or that DCS has the APG-73 extremely under-performing in the simulation.  Truth is, I've had better luck not using this radar at all.

 

60nm is too far for the radar to resolve contacts with that small of an RCS. If you think the Hornet's radar is bad, you would loathe the Viper's which has even less range.

Also, don't use medium PRF for anything outside of about 30 miles, use it for closer contacts.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Tholozor

[GumidekCZ]

Question, which may be rised here ... ,can ED contact JANES, may be pay a little sum and get the information about all DCS radar preformances (including may be new and more accurate APG-65 detections for FC3 F-15C).
Or can somedoy do it for ED?

[Tholozor]

42 minutes ago, GumidekCZ said:

Question, which may be rised here ... ,can ED contact JANES, may be pay a little sum and get the information about all DCS radar preformances (including may be new and more accurate APG-65 detections for FC3 F-15C).
Or can somedoy do it for ED?

The 65 is what was used on older Hornets. IIRC the DCS version of the F-15C uses the APG-63(v)1.

[Swift.]

Point 1, as Tholozor said, dont use MED PRF. Use interleaved or HI

Point 2, now you are seeing why having MSI in hornet might not be such a bad thing eh? You have those surv tracks clear as day from the awacs so you should be able to set the L&S to those targets regardless of radar performance.