F-15 Radar

[Exorcet]

A couple of questions after playing online for a while:

 

First, does the real F-15 have no way to screen jammers off the radar? With everyone jamming online, HOJ kills are pretty effective, but the problem is when a target is on the same bearing off your nose as a jammer. You can see the plane on your radar, he will be 'under' the jamming bars, but you cannot lock him. You will only ever lock the jammer, even if you bring the designator directly over the plane. I can't imagine the F-15 (or any plane) being susceptible to this is reality. If it in fact is, keep things as is, but if this is not the case in the real fighter, I think this should be addressed in the upcoming patch that will fix the F-15's super turn rates. (I haven't had this issue with the Su-27 or MiG-29, but if the same occurs with them, and it's not realistic, it should be fixed too.)

 

Second thing, when in TWS, why is it impossible to see some targets? I understand that TWS is inferior in ability to other radar modes, but they can be coming head on at altitude (which is pretty much ideal) and I can switch between TWS and RWS and only see the radar hit in the latter. Is this just a result of the way TWS is simulated, or is there some basis for this in reality?

[104th_Crunch]

Hi Exorcet. I have no real good knowledge of the APG-63 radar's handling ability of ECM contacts, but you have to figure that ECM actually does serve a purpose to disrupt radar images and to make contacts eratic on the display.

 

Like you say, TWS has a disadvantage and that is that it's scan rate is not as high, and it relies on memory instead until it scans the same area again. I see the same behaviour as you in TWS, but as the contact closes in, the TWS will not lose contacts so quickly. Try using TWS in narrow mode to scan, and once a contact is bugged, switch to wide 120 degree scanning so you can turn freely without losing the contact. Narrow mode will scan twics as fast. RWS should theoretically work better in RL and now it does in FC2 as well which is good. Don't forget to use PRF modes in RWS that are now modelled in the F-15 in FC2. Works just like the RUS aircraft.

[Exorcet]

Thanks for the quick reply. I've already been using narrow mode ever since I started noticing TWS's shortcomings. In fact, I almost use it exclusively, even when tracking a target and guiding a missile [in TWS mode].

 

On PRF, I don't seem to notice a difference. I switch as soon as the box around the target starts to flash, but it keeps flashing and I lose lock anyway.

 

I agree about ECM possibly disrupting radar, but I'm not familiar enough with the real system to know what is realistic, what's not, and what is not realistic but is the best that can be done for a commercial simulator. I would think that if I can't lock the target, I shouldn't be able to see it either. Also, when jammers are emitting, and the target is not within the bars of the jammer, I can lock as usual.

[Total]

IRL - ECM coming in on (example) a bearing of 010 will impede your ability to see any other contacts clearly on that bearing. It's a tactic commonly used when an aircraft like the EA-6B is flying above and behind a group of strike aircraft heading which are headed into a hostile zone. The EA-6B will employ ECM on the hostile targeting radar and mask the strike group which is on the same bearing as the EA-6B.

 

As far as TWS - what Crunch said :)

[connos]

Hi Exorcet. I have no real good knowledge of the APG-63 radar's handling ability of ECM contacts, but you have to figure that ECM actually does serve a purpose to disrupt radar images and to make contacts eratic on the display.

 

Like you say, TWS has a disadvantage and that is that it's scan rate is not as high, and it relies on memory instead until it scans the same area again. I see the same behaviour as you in TWS, but as the contact closes in, the TWS will not lose contacts so quickly. Try using TWS in narrow mode to scan, and once a contact is bugged, switch to wide 120 degree scanning so you can turn freely without losing the contact. Narrow mode will scan twics as fast. RWS should theoretically work better in RL and now it does in FC2 as well which is good. Don't forget to use PRF modes in RWS that are now modelled in the F-15 in FC2. Works just like the RUS aircraft.

 

What is PRF and how can I use it?

[GGTharos]

I can't rep you again yet, thoug I'd like to add - SPJs are not modeled in FC, only a simple range jammer. With SPJs we would not have a problem with seeing contacts in search modes - rather, they'd break your lock (or try to anyway) if you tried to go STT on them.

Further ECM coverage is not properly simulated - for example the F-15C has a 360 deg coverage, but Su-27 +/- 60 deg front and back (no coverage on 3-9).

Further, only one ECCM mode is modeled, and it's missing most of the capabilities it should have anyway: Angle-On-Jam.

 

Why is all this stuff missing? It's a survey sim, that's all. In FC, American radar, Russian radar, all made in Taiwan ;)

Personally I am hoping we'll see more detailed electronic warfare modeled in DCS. :)

 

As for TWS vs RWS mentioned above (not by Total) ... what? Scan rate of TWS and RWS are the same in the real-world jet, but no, the differences between those modes are not propely simulsted currently.

 

IRL - ECM coming in on (example) a bearing of 010 will impede your ability to see any other contacts clearly on that bearing. It's a tactic commonly used when an aircraft like the EA-6B is flying above and behind a group of strike aircraft heading which are headed into a hostile zone. The EA-6B will employ ECM on the hostile targeting radar and mask the strike group which is on the same bearing as the EA-6B.

 

As far as TWS - what Crunch said :)

[104th_Crunch]

Perhaps scan rate isn't the best term. Just going by the manual...

 

"TWS has several restrictions. The radar will attempt to build track files for each contact, but given a large scan volume, there will be a sizable refresh time between scans. During each scan the radar will try to predict the position of the contact for the next scan. "

 

Good info GG thanks.

 

What is PRF and how can I use it?

Search the PDF manual for PRF and you will see lots of good info.

[Total]

Personally I am hoping we'll see more detailed electronic warfare modeled in DCS. :)

 

Well, if ED needs any assistance in this area, I'll supply what info I know is declassified. If they can show me something else has been declassified, then I can go in depth on that too :D

 

It looks like what's modeled into FC is simple barrage jamming instead of emitter specific jamming.

[GGTharos]

Crunch, specifically for the APG-63, at least from '86, 4 hits are required to build a track, but after this only one hit to update it. The hits are displayed throughout the process, so you know where those aircraft are even though they may not yet have a track file.

 

This means you need 4 consecutive scans of the target to have a reliable TWS track file. After the file is built, you're tracking.

 

Refresh rate will be the same in RWS and TWS: If you're scanning at 8B 6A it will take 10 sec or so per scan, which implies the fastest you can build a TWS track is 40 seconds initially, but hit updates come at 10 second intervals. (Actually longer, depending on the distance you're scanning at ... with the VSD at 80 nm, antenna speed is 70dps, so you'll get one update about every 14-15 sec. You close at a speed of 15-20nm/min typically)

 

However, you can easily go to HNDTWS (High Data-Rate non-designated TWS) and build a track file in just one second or so - maybe two. Faster with a mini-raster, though I forget if F-15 does this. It would appear obvious that in RL you would want to get a bunch of hits, then go narrow azimuth and bars to build the track files quickly and maintain a reliable track ... or get an AESA radar, then you'll just own ;)

 

RWS has one possible advantage that I can think of over TWS, which may matter for older aircraft and possibly ECCM: it consumes less processing power and less memory. This might not actually matter for the APG-63 though.

 

Perhaps scan rate isn't the best term. Just going by the manual...

 

"TWS has several restrictions. The radar will attempt to build track files for each contact, but given a large scan volume, there will be a sizable refresh time between scans. During each scan the radar will try to predict the position of the contact for the next scan. "

 

Good info GG thanks.

 

 

Search the PDF manual for PRF and you will see lots of good info.

Edited April 21, 2010 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

Well, if ED needs any assistance in this area, I'll supply what info I know is declassified. If they can show me something else has been declassified, then I can go in depth on that too :D

 

I shall put your card in my card roller sir :D

 

It looks like what's modeled into FC is simple barrage jamming instead of emitter specific jamming.

 

Yep - correct, which is why these arguments of whether a jammer in this case can be ranged or not are silly - if it's AOJ, you can TMA it ... in reality you just shouldn't need to for the scenario presented in FC (AFAIK no SPJ will emit if it doesn't detect a threat, and threat = STT and also there's no dedicated EA support in FC) .

[Panzertard]

This is gold. I remember to have read most of it posted by some of you guys earlier, but to have it compiled one topic is great! ;)

 

Funny thing - some of these radar program's limitations sounds like a poor mans pocket calculator limitation. Not enough memory to track certain targets in certain modes etc. Not a big supprise considering these things were built back in th 70's something?

I cannot stop reflecting over how much better such technology have become today.

 

Still, love to see more hard data whenever you have it, gents! :)

 

Rep inbound.

[Exorcet]

Good info. I guess I'll just have to bare with what we have.

 

If anything though, this thread resolved the problem I had with PRF. For whatever reason I decided to check the controls, it turns out I changed the button I had originally assigned. Keeping a lock is 10 times easier now.