TADS - Ground Stab and Tracking'

[hotrod525]

Hello folks,

In  the TADS part II video ,Wags talk about a "Linear motion compensator". IF i get this right, LMC is a sort of "TRIM" for the TADS, and he "life-hack-use-it" as a sort of "Tracking method", then he mention its not Ground Stab and so on.

Ain't the TADS "a fully stabalise" and capable of autotracking (just like you would expect from any target acquisition and designation sensors aka TGP) ?  Or is LMC the only way of tracking ?

[AvroLanc]

Yeah it has MTT. Multi Target tracker, which is basically a ‘point track’ contrast lock in TGP speak. 

The cool thing is you can select a primary track and up to 2 secondary tracks to memory and use a TEDAC switch to switch back and forth between targets without manually slewing. 

Not so cool is that ED have left that system for later in EA. So we don’t know exactly when it might get added. It’s got to be pretty useful so hopefully it gets high priority. 

It’s a shame that even a simple legacy IAT (simple Image Auto Track) with tracking gates etc won’t be included from the start. But the manual slew looks pretty useable. 

[Sinclair_76]

With manual slew you impart an angle. With the LMC you give the TADS bucket an angular speed. This speed is corrected by own ship movement if there is a reliable distance to the target. 

With the TGP in the F-16 for example, point track is literally keeping a point in space in the center. The TADS does not do this. Without LMC it will null out any angular movement but if you're in a wheel around the target this requires manual slewing to maintain the TADS on target.  

Edited February 13, 2022 by Sinclair_76

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

Ain't the TADS "a fully stabalise" and capable of autotracking (just like you would expect from any target acquisition and designation sensors aka TGP) ?  Or is LMC the only way of tracking ?

The TADS isn't comparable to a TGP as much as it is more like a sighting system on an armored vehicle. There are differences in stabilization and tracking methodologies when designing a sight that is meant to look across the battlefield at minimal to no look-down angles versus those meant to look down at the ground at near-vertical angles.

The TADS does have some stabilization with LMC off as well, but it wasn't meant to stare at a general location on the ground, it was meant to keep scanning across the horizon and then provide tracking stabilization against suitable targets.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Raptor9

[hotrod525]

9 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

The TADS isn't comparable to a TGP as much as it is more like a sighting system on an armored vehicle. There are differences in stabilization and tracking methodologies when designing a sight that is meant to look across the battlefield at minimal to no look-down angles versus those meant to look down at the ground at near-vertical angles.

The TADS does have some stabilization with LMC off as well, but it wasn't meant to stare at a general location on the ground, it was meant to keep scanning across the horizon and then provide tracking stabilization against suitable targets.

 

I spended alot of time inside IFV turret, so basicly a Stab with a drift compensator with Mk1 eyeball and Mk2 right hand as tracking method... 

[Raptor9]

18 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

I spended alot of time inside IFV turret, so basicly a Stab with a drift compensator with Mk1 eyeball and Mk2 right hand as tracking method... 

Exactly. Plus a constrast lock feature like the Ka-50's Shkval.

[kgillers3]

1 hour ago, hotrod525 said:

I spended alot of time inside IFV turret, so basicly a Stab with a drift compensator with Mk1 eyeball and Mk2 right hand as tracking method... 

If you think of the apache as a flying IFV with no people carrying capability it'll all come together. 

[hotrod525]

16 minutes ago, kgillers3 said:

If you think of the apache as a flying IFV with no people carrying capability it'll all come together. 

On the tactical side, yeah. On the sighting side, i have doubt. Yeah the mechanic is the same, but i've never roll, pitch and bank at "such a significant level" while firing on the move. Only MBT  have the FCS to fire on the move at 50 mph and yet that still a far cry from the 180 knots we are gonna fly at.

[kgillers3]

1 hour ago, hotrod525 said:

On the tactical side, yeah. On the sighting side, i have doubt. Yeah the mechanic is the same, but i've never roll, pitch and bank at "such a significant level" while firing on the move. Only MBT  have the FCS to fire on the move at 50 mph and yet that still a far cry from the 180 knots we are gonna fly at.

It's the same, the distances are just farther, move to cover, don't do silly things and remain exposed, work as a crew.  You won't be flying at 180kts, if the platform is unstable while you're shooting just like in your tank then your rounds are going to be inaccurate. 

If you're flying with george, plan ahead. 

[Razor18]

Sorry if missing something, but if it is a "contrast lock point track" kinda thing, why would the sensor need any motion compensation looking at any relative direction? I can rather see it justified for "area tracking", but how could it drift if it is following a point?

[AvroLanc]

1 hour ago, Razor18 said:

Sorry if missing something, but if it is a "contrast lock point track" kinda thing, why would the sensor need any motion compensation looking at any relative direction? I can rather see it justified for "area tracking", but how could it drift if it is following a point?

The LMC is for manual slewing not auto tracking.  

[Razor18]

OK, then I rephrase my question: if you can give any angular speed to your manual tracking with your LMC, what is the point of "correcting it additionally, considering range" compared to press your thumb in that direction a little more, if you see any drift from the center? Not sure I can find the answer among all those posts above. What am I missing?

Edited February 14, 2022 by Razor18

[Sinclair_76]

1 hour ago, Razor18 said:

OK, then I rephrase my question: if you can give any angular speed to your manual tracking with your LMC, what is the point of "correcting it additionally, considering range" compared to press your thumb in that direction a little more, if you see any drift from the center? Not sure I can find the answer among all those posts above. What am I missing?

 

If the helicopter you're in starts moving, the angular velocity will be compensated for that movement. For example you are following a MBT with the TADS and LMC on. The MBT is moving perpendicular from you at a range of 4000m. If the helicopter starts moving in the same direction with the same speed, the angular velocity for the TADS on MBT would be 0. If the LMC wouldn't not compensate for that it would still have an angular velocity. To overcome that problem, with correct range to target and geometry, the TADS LMC will compensate angular velocity to match the target velocity. If the helicopter moves the opposite direction but with the same speed the angular velocity of the TADS would double to compensate

Now same scenario (opposite movement) but in stead of the correct range you enter a manual range of 2000m. When the aircraft is in a stationary hover there shouldn't be an issue to keep the crosshairs on target with the TADS LMC. But if the aircraft starts moving, the LMC will now be counter productive and slew away of the target at double the rate. So the TTP is to lase the target before engaging LMC. 

Again, correct range is not much of a problem in a static environment, aka low and slow, like the cold war Fulda gap scenario. In a dynamic high setting (Afganistan, Iraq) incorrect use of the LMC* caused a lot of trouble especially in the beginning. The Brits aptly called the LMC the Gilles de la Tourette button, because it caused a lot of swearing. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Sinclair_76
correction

[Razor18]

I completely understand what you say, a.k.a aiming to a moving target from a moving platform with all possible speed vectors (like a B-17 gunner, but without the lead for the bullet, because your "bullet" is now the light itself)). But again, if it is only refers to manual tracking (right?), why do you need any complex onboard calculation, if you can follow the target with any angular speed it ever moves? Just like Matt does in his video. If the target "overtakes" centerpoint, then you tilt the LMC a bit more, and catch up with it manually. If the target lags from canter, you decrease the controller's deflection a bit, and the reticle slows back onto the target.

Unless we do NOT speak about manual tracking here.

[hotrod525]

13 hours ago, kgillers3 said:

It's the same, the distances are just farther, move to cover, don't do silly things and remain exposed, work as a crew.  You won't be flying at 180kts, if the platform is unstable while you're shooting just like in your tank then your rounds are going to be inaccurate. 

If you're flying with george, plan ahead. 

This is like the essence of being an armor crewman lol !

I'll wait to get my hands on the module, but i honestly have doubt comparing a LAV 6 FCS and an AH64 FCS, will see.

 

[Raptor9]

@Razor18, there are more variables that come into play when determining when to use IAT and/or LMC than just how to keep the TADS on target.  And having a reliable and accurate range is also important not just for TADS tracking but for ballistics calculation of the aircraft weapons systems.  I can't really speak to it since I don't know how much DCS will simulate.

[Razor18]

I completely agree with you on calculating the helo's own velocity vector (heading and speed) and the azimuth and elevation of the acquisition sensor into proper lead for the impact points being on the reticle, regardless of target bearing at that moment, that's what I mentioned couple of posts before. But that does (or should) not offset the visual reticle position from being on target. Just for example, if you are flying HDG 360 and TGT is at your 9 o'clock (bearing 270), then while your TADS keeps the TGT in the reticle, the chain gun will have to point actually behind the target (like to bearing 265° or something), because the bullet will leave the barrel aiming to 265°, but having also a forward component from the helo's speed, it will hopefully impact exactly into the TGT being at BRG 270°. And vica versa, if the gun would aim right at the target, the bullet would land North, "in front" of the target in the HDG of the helo's flight, due to the helo's speed added at the moment when the bullet leaves the muzzle.

And the vertical componenet is even more complicated, where the vertical angle of the barrel offsets the impact point upward even if the helo is just hovering high above the TGT (just for the theoretic example, and as does uphill and downhill shooting with a rifle), plus the forward speed ( if there is forward speed), that would make the bullets land longer than aimed anyway. So the ballistic computer has to consider all this in real time: barrel elevation, azimuth, range to TGT, and helo's speed, but you keep the reticle on the TGT the whole time, and the ballistic computer adjusts the barrel based on all that factors.

EDIT: AFter watching Matt's gun video, I stand corrected: azimuth lead is NOT calculated by the computer, you need to lead TGTs for yourself (I dunno if it is permanent, and true to real life, or just for Early acess). Same goes to TGTs ahead of you then, I reckon...

Edited February 14, 2022 by Razor18

[hotrod525]

Also, looking at the Gun video, TADS look somewhat stabilised when the X mark in the crosshair come's on'

[QuiGon]

On 2/14/2022 at 3:33 AM, hotrod525 said:

Only MBT  have the FCS to fire on the move at 50 mph and yet that still a far cry from the 180 knots we are gonna fly at.

Just a sidenote, but there are also IFVs with such FCS capabilities.

[hotrod525]

4 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Just a sidenote, but there are also IFVs with such FCS capabilities.

Yeah ofcourse, many high-end IFV does have that capability, well in fact, even old one. The real issue here is the platform is not as heavy and stable as a tank so you easily hit the elevation (relative to gun depression versus the hull) limit as you go trough the terrain bumpin around. Specialy for wheeled combat vehicle and older the Gyro... worst is the drift. Anyway.

#LetTryToNotGoTooMuchOffTopicBeforeBigNewWarnUs lol

 

 

[Lurker]

Seems like controlling the tads will probably be best done with an Xbox or PlayStation controller