correct as-is F-16 Look-Up Detection from low altitude

[Star57]

Below approximately 5,000 feet, both radar detection range and radar tracking range for a target in lookup suffer a severe range penalty, which increases in severity the lower the altitude you fly at.

For example, the range at which you are able to bug a target in SAM mode is approximately 38NM at 5,000 feet. This is reduced to 14.2NM when flying at less than 100 feet.

Bugging a target at a higher altitude and descending to the deck results in the track being lost, regardless of whether the track was in SAM mode or STT.

Testing was conducted over the water, using a target F/A-18C Lot 20 flying hot 40,000 feet above the player aircraft. If the player aircraft was at 5,000 feet, the target would be at 45,000 feet, etc.

Included is a control test at 10,000 feet, showing a normal (maximum) detection range and bugging range.

viperlookupdetectionandtrack100feet.trk viperlookupdetectionandtrack10kfeet.trk viperlookupdetectionandtrack5kfeetdescent.trk

Attached is another track which couldn't fit in the original post.

viperlookupdetectionandtrack2kfeet.trk

[FusRoPotato]

I was just about to make a mission to test this because I've been noticing the same thing. Felt more like below 4k, but basically acts like lookdown penalty inverted. All the dots vanish. Oddly enough, I can still auto lock hot targets within 5 nm in DGFT mode, but it won't draw them in A2A.

Some older radars have a lot of difficulty when beaming the ground up close because the interference gets more intense, however I can't imagine there being any problems for bars looking above the horizon. 

[falcon_120]

Not an expert on radars, but i think this is actually realistic. At low altitude there is a lots of noise coming from the side lobes of the radar. Dont know how severe should it be of course, maybe it needs tweaking, but i love seen this is somehow considered.

On the other hand, i hope this is true for all fighters not only high fdidelity ones. FC3 radars should follow the same principles.

[FusRoPotato]

Sure, before high spectral purity exciters and 3-channel receivers...

The APG-68 was known for its ability to detect low altitude targets while looking down despite its lack of power and size through several doppler filtering techniques, but it gets worse looking up compared to looking at the horizon?

 

[Frederf]

APG-68 is both MPRF and HPRF. I don't know if it uses both in this scenario.

[audax]

1 hour ago, Frederf said:

APG-68 is both MPRF and HPRF. I don't know if it uses both in this scenario.

It always uses the worst radar wave in any scenario so it isn't OP.

[nighthawk2174]

The APG-68 also has sidelobe guard horns to suppress the sidelobe clutter as well.  Is that even considered in this model?

[NineLine]

So, sadly here we are again, I have had to delete off topic and others. If you disagree with the assessment made here, which is that based on the available we have it is correct due to side lobes (I am quoting the team answer on this, if you need more PM and I will try and add more to this post). 

Calling us or our work ridiculous, unrealistic, etc without offering any reasonable proof or examples is not helpful. So now I am going to lock this thread, I don't want to lock this thread, I want to leave it open for reasonable posts and evidence, but each time we have these discussions some one comes along and just gets way to bent out of shape.

So if you have info on this related to this aircraft and radar system, PM me with your response and I will make sure it gets to the team.