F/A-18C vs. F-16C Radar (BVR)

[bob030]

Hey,

 

I am new to this forum and this is also my first post so hi to everyone.

I played the F-15 in Lock-On many years ago and came back to DCS as soon as I could afford reasonable hardware, mostly flying F/A-18C. I took my time to study the F/A-18C in trainings and missions and jumped into multiplayer when felt ready. I really love the Hornet.

 

There is one thing though I noticed that seems to be a bit odd to me. I know that there are many exprerienced people knowing their aircraft well but when going up against F-16 I almost always loose.

When even beeing able to get LNS it looses track quite often. Sometimes I only see the the contacts on DL and they shoot at me before I even can get a radar contact. Also if I am lucky, obtain a lock and firing AIM-120C at RMax i get hit first even if I am in a better position energetically (higher/faster). So in general from my position the F-18C radar seems to be much weaker (maybe just more realistic) than that of the F-16.

So what I did is getting the F-16 module and for me it really seems like the F-16 obtains locks earlier and looses it less often.

 

This is not about dogfighting, just BVR. Do you have made the same experience? Is the F-18C buggy, is it more realistic or is the F-16 OP? Does anyone know how the F/A-18C performs against the F-16C in BVR in real life?

How do you perform against the F-16s in DCS?

 

Cheers,

 

Bob

[Cepheus76]

Hello and welcome!

 

There are already quite a few threads regarding the F18's radar performance ( mainly in the bug section of the forum), but if I recall correctly, you're mostly right with your assumption that the Hornet's radar is performing correctly.

 

A quick remedy for losing LNS tracks so quickly is to adjust the time how long a track is retained to 8 or even better 16 seconds. You can do that on the radar's data sub-page using OSB 10.

 

Also, I suggest that you watch Wag's excellent Hornet Radar tutorial on Youtube: 

 

[Hulkbust44]

Hello and welcome!
 
There are already quite a few threads regarding the F18's radar performance ( mainly in the bug section of the forum), but if I recall correctly, you're mostly right with your assumption that the Hornet's radar is performing correctly.
 
A quick remedy for losing LNS tracks so quickly is to adjust the time how long a track is retained to 8 or even better 16 seconds. You can do that on the radar's data sub-page using OSB 10.
 
Also, I suggest that you watch Wag's excellent Hornet Radar tutorial on Youtube: 
 

It is most certainly not performing realistically. The AN/APG-65 of which was replaced by or Hornet's AN/APG-73 had better performance than our DCS Hornet radar. The detection range is lacking. (It was absurd before at 97nm, but it should realistically be at an absolute minimum be 55nm for a fighter sized target. Right now maximum range in DCS for a fighter is 48nm...)


And what you mentioned about the brick timeout is a workaround for a major bug. Tracks are being dropped because someone thought that the brick timeout should influence trackfile deletion...they have nothing to do with each other. This issue also stems from a lack of MEM mode.

As for comparison, the Hornet radar should out perform the Viper's radar in nearly every metric. Especially detection range/capability. The 16 has a slight advantage in MPRF detection, but that's mostly because It can only search in MPRF.

Now, the Viper radar is DCS is absurd right now and should be fixed in the next patch according to ED.(in detection range)

Mobius708

[TLTeo]

Yeah the main issue right now is the Viper radar over-performing by a large amount, the Hornet may be under performing by a small amount, and track memory on the Hornet is busted.

 

Having said that, I think the Viper is also helped by the fact the radar is much easier to use (imo). You don't need to worry about toggling PRFs, changing scan azimuth can be done faster, and RWS/SAM modes are more intuitive (imo) than anything the Hornet does (and by definition, in RWS you don't get issues with weird dropped tracks).

[Hulkbust44]

Yeah the main issue right now is the Viper radar over-performing by a large amount, the Hornet may be under performing by a small amount, and track memory on the Hornet is busted.
 
Having said that, I think the Viper is also helped by the fact the radar is much easier to use (imo). You don't need to worry about toggling PRFs, changing scan azimuth can be done faster, and RWS/SAM modes are more intuitive (imo) than anything the Hornet does (and by definition, in RWS you don't get issues with weird dropped tracks).

Hornet has the same Azimuth bumps, but better because you can actually control it. Only hindered right now due to the stupid slow slew rate.

As for ease of use, just press NWS to step the tracks, no need to slew and designate anything. Really can't beat that. Even to STT it's just a castle towards the attack format.

Mobius708

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Hulkbust44 said:

It is most certainly not performing realistically. The AN/APG-65 of which was replaced by or Hornet's AN/APG-73 had better performance than our DCS Hornet radar. The detection range is lacking. (It was absurd before at 97nm, but it should realistically be at an absolute minimum be 55nm for a fighter sized target. Right now maximum range in DCS for a fighter is 48nm...)

 

 

Got a source?

[Hulkbust44]

 
Got a source?

For 73 data, I wish. I believe there was a document I found that detailed the radar performance of the AN/APG-65 in the Harrier and Hornet. I explicitly remember reading 55nm for a 5m^2 target in a look up. Knowing that the 73 made significant improvements upon the 65, I'm placing 55nm as an absolute minimum of what the 73's high end detection range should be in DCS.

Mobius708

[GGTharos]

65 data would be good enough, just need to find that source.   Both have HPRF, are digital, and generically same/similar antenna technology so the increase from one to other won't be dramatic but you could get some 60nm for a look-up 5sqm target.

Edited September 9, 2021 by GGTharos

[Kula66]

The issue is the range of the 18s radar as compared to the 16s; the 16s radar currently out ranges the 15 and the 18, which does seem odd.

[wilbur81]

The devs have been fairly quiet on the Viper end regarding the radar's current performance, but I think the Viper community is going to have to go through some of the same stuff the Hornet community has as it gets closer to maturity: As with the Hornet, as the Viper gets more realistic, it will not perform as great as it currently does now in several areas: High Mach numbers without stores damage, an F-15 performing radar, etc.

Edited September 9, 2021 by wilbur81

[Kula66]

Let’s hope so soon 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Kula66

[Jenson]

12 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

to STT it's just a castle towards the attack format.

Didn't know this before, you can always teach me something, thanks again!

[Hulkbust44]

Didn't know this before, you can always teach me something, thanks again!

Another tiny detail, AACQ has a submode, FACQ. (fast acquisition)

Same SCS logic, but rather than getting a STT on the current L+S, the system commands a STT on the target under cursor.(TUC)
This can be quite usefull.

Always happy to help!

Mobius708

[Jenson]

18 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Another tiny detail, AACQ has a submode, FACQ. (fast acquisition)

Same SCS logic, but rather than getting a STT on the current L+S, the system commands a STT on the target under cursor.(TUC)
This can be quite usefull.

Always happy to help!

Mobius708
 

 

Got it, thanks. 

[Hardcard]

Another relevant thing that I haven't seen mentioned so far in this thread is the bar setting. 

Before the hornet's radar rework, I remember that 4 bar & 40º azimuth in TWS was good enough.
After the rework, though, 4 bar was no good anymore, even with the narrowest azimuth setting, the radar struggled to pick up targets and maintain locks. 

I found that the 2 bar setting yielded much better results.

 

If you're experiencing this kind of issues and using the 4 bar setting, try with 2 bar instead.

 

(Perhaps the brick timeout workaround will be enough to make the 4 bar setting reliable, but in case it doesn't improve things, try 2 bar) 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Hardcard

[Tholozor]

Part of that issue also stems from the bugged ageout timer setting and the lack of proper radar trackfile memory. 4-bar at 40deg is still valid, just not with the default ageout setting on the 120 at 4 seconds (hell even with the Sparrow's default at 8 seconds feels too low). Bumping it up to something like 16 seconds makes the larger scan volume more viable.

[Jak525]

The radar is super difficult to use due to a lack of proper trackfile memory logic. Assuming there is no other MSI sensors involved, your trackfiles are going to delete quicker with a smaller scan volume and always as a function of frames, not purely time. So you won't have a trackfile delete when the radar hasn't even had the OPPORTUNITY to scan over it again.

 

This missing logic is why it feels like the radar is "struggling" to maintain targets.

 

As it's been explained before, the age out time should apply strictly to the display of the raw hit brick symbols, with zero effect on the trackfiles themselves.

[Beamscanner]

On 9/9/2021 at 7:46 AM, GGTharos said:

65 data would be good enough, just need to find that source.   Both have HPRF, are digital, and generically same/similar antenna technology so the increase from one to other won't be dramatic but you could get some 60nm for a look-up 5sqm target.

 

 

[falcon_120]

After the F16 radar has been worked on, results will be a bit better. There are from my PoV 2 major things going against the F18 and favouring the F16:

1. Detection range of the F16 is wrong, after the rework an F18 vs F16 should see each other at a similar distance, with a little advantage if any for the hornet pilot
2. Currently the F16 radar in DCS does not suffer any degradation caused by jammers. It should be the case that in the future, the reduced detection range of the F16 gets a bit more exacerbated by the use of jamming by the hornet.

With those 2 points in mind, you are basically degrading really long +40nm amramm shots in the viper, to around 25nm ish while giving yourself a bit of room for a first shot.

 

As a side note, hopefully with an increase in radar range of the F15 after the patch, this plane would regain his throne as the best BVR fighter in DCS only hindered by the lack of Link16 and JHMCS.

[Harker]

Given the same target RCS, the Hornet's radar in HPRF should have an appreciably better detection range over the Viper's.

And if MSI is properly added, it'll be possible to designate a target for launch and perform all necessary maneuvering, without needing to actually detect the target yourself, detection becoming necessary only for shot convent and missile guidance.

One thing the Viper might be better at is MPRF detection, which becomes more important as you're entering shot ranges, as it's less susceptible to break locks and provides more accurate target range. But, admittedly, I don't know much about the Viper's MPRF modes, so there might not be a difference there, in the end.

[GGTharos]

23 minutes ago, Harker said:

And if MSI is properly added, it'll be possible to designate a target for launch and perform all necessary maneuvering, without needing to actually detect the target yourself, detection becoming necessary only for shot convent and missile guidance.

 

Is that a fact?  I mean it's always a possibility, but is MSI factually implemented this way, with the WCS generating the m-link without having generated its own track?

[Harker]

 
Is that a fact?  I mean it's always a possibility, but is MSI factually implemented this way, with the WCS generating the m-link without having generated its own track?

You can designate an MSI trackfile (with or without radar contribution) as the L&S, so you can already get all related targeting info. But at that stage, the MC does not pass on data to the missile (you have a NO RDR cue under the TD box on the HUD). Radar contribution is necessary in order to enable a radar guided missile launch.

So, the radar becomes a necessary part of the MSI system, only if you intend to launch a radar guided missile.

There is both video evidence of the NO RDR cue, as well as multiple distinctions between MSI trackfiles with or without radar contribution and L&S/DT2 with or without radar contribution in the 742-100. You don't need the radar to build a full MSI trackfile, this is only a thing in DCS. In fact, one thing we're missing in DCS is the radar contribution circle for MSI trackfiles that your own radar also contributes to. Visually, our trackfiles look like the IRL ones *without* radar contribution.

So you still need to detect a target yourself to launch at it, but you can build full SA on it and position yourself correctly, before you detect it. By the time you do, you can launch immediately, if you wish.

[GGTharos]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Hulkbust44]

You can designate an MSI trackfile (with or without radar contribution) as the L&S, so you can already get all related targeting info. But at that stage, the MC does not pass on data to the missile (you have a NO RDR cue under the TD box on the HUD). Radar contribution is necessary in order to enable a radar guided missile launch.

So, the radar becomes a necessary part of the MSI system, only if you intend to launch a radar guided missile.

There is both video evidence of the NO RDR cue, as well as multiple distinctions between MSI trackfiles with or without radar contribution and L&S/DT2 with or without radar contribution in the 742-100. You don't need the radar to build a full MSI trackfile, this is only a thing in DCS. In fact, one thing we're missing in DCS is the radar contribution circle for MSI trackfiles that your own radar also contributes to. Visually, our trackfiles look like the IRL ones *without* radar contribution.

So you still need to detect a target yourself to launch at it, but you can build full SA on it and position yourself correctly, before you detect it. By the time you do, you can launch immediately, if you wish.

There are even graphics in the DCS Hornet manual showing things such as radar contribution circle.

Mobius708

[Simba11]

Sorry to burst bubbles but you are comparing apples to oranges  and the f-16 radar and the F-18 radar are different. (duh we knew that) Is the F-18 radar under performing. Maybe but we will come back to that. Is the F-16 reader over performing. In short No actually the opposite could be argued. (whhhuuut, your just and F-16 fanboy).  So let look at a few important factors. Mission purpose of the F-16 vs the F-18, Navy procurement vs Airforce procurement, and what time frame version the modules are replicating.

 

The F-16 was a platform designed for air to air enguagements with adaptability to perform air to ground. (ok following) using the radar to track and lock ground targets was not the primary function of the f-16 radar and a lower value of performance in this aspect taken into account when designing it. (ok ok but we are talking air to air) This meant focus of design and out come performance were aimed at the air to air side. Insert F-18 into the discussion here. Mission of the F-18 was Fleet defense. The F-1 4 which was still very much in service at the time of F-18 procurement was the Air superiority intercepter with an extremely powerful air to air radar. The navy's focus was more multirole anti shipping capabilities. (ok ok we are following) So the ability for target solutions using the radar into air to ground and air to sea were given a much greater performance focus in development due to the Navy's needs. This intern affected its top end air2air performance. (ok this makes little sense but im not sold) Ok so now we have navy doctrine and airforce doctrine vaguely covered and giving a little context as to why different radar packages (68 vs 73) would be developed for different aircraft and not just its a the airplane look different.

 

So what year time frame is ED developing the F-18 to mimic. This is relevant on two points. Is it under performing and is the f-16 radar better at air to air. Ok so you might be already thinking this dude already said the F-16 radar had more of an Air2Air focus than the F-18 radar he is bias and going to F-16 fan boy again. stay with me please. the F-16 is being modeled on the 2006/2007 post upgrade information. This is greatly argued on what capabilities the F-16 should receive in the F-16 forums. (your in the F-18 forum fanboy get to the point) Ok so during this time the F-16 was already upgraded using the version 5 (v5) upgraded radar. Part of that 2006/2007 over all aircraft upgrade the radar was upgraded to the version 9 (v9). This means the F-16 radar in dcs is actually under performing if they were trying to be time specific to the F-16. (booo its already OP be happy with what you have garden snake boy). So I use this to give context to why the radars are performing a different values. Now your probably like ok thats the F-16 now get back to the F-18 because im sure it has been upgraded too. If you don't address this than your just being a Bias fan boy. I say fair point.

 

So 2010 is relevant to the Navy an navy aircraft procurement and sustainability. The navy had already been procuring Super hornets by this time. The navy needed to decide on where it wanted to put its money and the long term future of the legacy hornets. (after all the aircraft still had a lot of life left on its expected service life ) The Super hornet already came with vastly more powerful and upgraded radars and other capailities so the navy was debating two key factors. First do we spend money on buying more super hornets and just phase out the legacy hornets earlier  that originally planned. number two and this is the sad truth for the F-18 fans. in 2010 the navy acknowledge that if they were going to sustain flying the F-18c legacies they needed to upgrade the aircraft and actually referenced the fact that the airforce upgraded its f-16 radars at a far more frequent rate and if they were keep the legacy that they needed to to upgrade. The navy did end up upgrading some of its fleet as the plan was that as they phased out the legacys from the navy they would be transferred to the  Marines to continue flying in effort to get the most bang for the buck out of the plane they already owned.  ( Damn it fanboy I don't like what your saying but you might be making some points here) 

 

So in short is the F-18 radar under performing in air to air. yeah possibly but with out knowing what information ED is using what time frame they are aiming to replicate I couldn't give you the definitive F-18's radar needs to perform better. But the F-16 air to air radar when compared to the F18 air to air radar has always been superior because the airforce upgraded more often and put more designs requirements on the manufacturer  than the navy did. This isn't saying the navy made bad decision. the navy's performance requirements and mission requirements and rolls are different and the Navy wasn't buying an air superiority aircraft it was being a multirole fleet defense aircraft. 

 

I hope this helps some of you realize that the radars are different, they always were.  they had different designs and upgrade requirements. The f-16 radar has always been better in air to air. not a fanboy perspective just a reality based on they serve different purposes. 

 

cheers I hope this helps