Air to Ground radar?

Indeed, I even wonder if Deka is using already the ED AG radar framework

 

 

Regards

Maybe you don't pay much attention to the JF17. It is not as famous as F/A18 and F16. At present, EXP and DBS modes are not ideal in the testing process. These two patterns do not occur in the EA phase. As for the other sub-modes of air-to-ground radar, they have been implemented and can be enjoyed in EA stage. This is an amazing achievement. This technology is developed by themselves and has nothing to do with F/A18. The F/A18 of ED has its own unique air-to-ground radar technology.

Can someone tell me why JF-17 has a Air/Ground radar and ED planes not?

ED has many things to do, such as map, dynamic battle, platform maintenance and so on. It's not just about making an airplane. I believe that F/A18 will be completed in the future. At present, JF17 is far ahead of schedule, which does not mean anything.

Can you share your RL footage of the JF-17 AG radar? Thanks

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Viggen radar has a great simulation. But keep in mind the Viggen radar is different from Hornet and JF-17. The Viggen's radar only has one mode, and was specifically designed for air to ground mapping.

 

 

 

The JF-17 radar actually looks pretty good. What we saw was its poorest resolution mode, Real Beam Ground mapping. YT videos of the F-16 in air to ground mode show similar results as Deka's JF-17.

In any case im eager to see a bit more.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure we will see A/G radar and TWS come out for the Viper and Hornet at once - they are now probably in some kind of release sprint for the Viper, the systems have a certain commonality and they are working on modular design for plane's features so I'm thinking that's where a lot of the apparent "delay" for the Hornet comes from.

Well I think ED is basically building a much better "general" radar system for the current and any future planes. At least thats what would make sense to me. And maybe a better EW system is part of all that, which could be why its taking so long. I bet you are right though, we will likely see it on the Hornet first followed rapidly by the Viper.

I think it's a question of "Simulation" Vs "Emulation"

 

Given that the software already knows where every potential target is in space as well as the host aircraft's parameters and any potential degradation due to terrain / weather / distance / other voodoo, I would think that ED could EMulate how A2G radar should work (where all of the above are relatively static factors)

 

But I'd also like to think that they are shooting for the moon and trying to create an organic SIMulation where all of the above factors not only exist in real time, but affect each other in a fluid and realistic manner. And this can not be easy...

 

 

But what do I know? I just fly 'em. I don't "build" 'em...

Be cool if that were true. But I'm a bit skeptical.

I don't get why the development of A/G Radar is so important to some people. I doubt it's going to be as big a game changer as the TGP as an example. Again, I think the disappointment in it not being developed yet is due to unrealistic expectation the community is creating for itself......Or it's due to the little kids not wanting to feel like their Hornet has been abandoned due to the Viper project, as recently highlighted by a certain junior forum member in a different thread.

I'm just waiting for the backlash once the A/G Radar is released and it's not what some people were expecting it to be........

Maybe Phil is about fulfilling a contract finishing a product we paid full price for, not for a year long+ Early access.. maybe its called professionalism, nothing to do with kiddies or whines..

Yeah the new car has rim tires, AC and a grate stereo that will be installed maybe next year... hey dont be ungrateful we gave you cruise control in 6 months...

Only in the software industry you get away with this...

So please refrain of treating others as idiots just because they are asking for what was agreed on the purchase contract.

I don't get why the development of A/G Radar is so important to some people. I doubt it's going to be as big a game changer as the TGP as an example. Again, I think the disappointment in it not being developed yet is due to unrealistic expectation the community is creating for itself......Or it's due to the little kids not wanting to feel like their Hornet has been abandoned due to the Viper project, as recently highlighted by a certain junior forum member in a different thread.

 

I'm just waiting for the backlash once the A/G Radar is released and it's not what some people were expecting it to be........

The biggest problem with that point of view arises from "new school" pilots that have almost never used the AG radar because they mainly did low intensity CAS with all the intel they needed and with possible collateral damages. AG radar doesn't really serve any purpose in low intensity asymmetric warfare.

In a full-blown war where targets are moving, strikes happen in the middle of the night or during bad weather, where big infrastructure are targeted, a AG radar is definitely an invaluable tool. There's a reason why every single attack aircraft (except light attack and CAS aircrafts like the A-10) nowadays have AG radars.

An AG radar gives you:

- AGR: ranging info, solving the height of target problem

- RBM: mapping through inclement weather and target detection

- DBS1 or 2: higher detail, "zoomed in" view of a patch, in which you can see parked aircrafts or hangars for example, with a lock capability

- SAR (the F-16 doesn't have that though): range-independent even more "zoomed in" (except at close range) view with better details

- GMTI: automatic detection and tracking of moving targets on ground, e.g. detecting a convoy or a tank line moving

- TF/TA: terrain following (giving a curve generally coupled with autopilot for low-level flight) and terrain avoidance ("contour" plot of terrain above, at and below the airplane)

- SEA: Similar to GMTI but for targets at sea (does not need to be moving in this case)

Example of use case:

- Finding a convoy

- Detecting SCUD launchers in the desert

- Targeting an outpost

- Low-level strike

- Strike with less than ideal intel

- Strike in a 80s scenario (where satellite imagery was more difficult to obtain or simply unavailable)

- Anti-shipping/anti-piracy

- Search and rescue

And the list goes on.

I think it's a question of "Simulation" Vs "Emulation"

 

Given that the software already knows where every potential target is in space as well as the host aircraft's parameters and any potential degradation due to terrain / weather / distance / other voodoo, I would think that ED could EMulate how A2G radar should work (where all of the above are relatively static factors)

 

But I'd also like to think that they are shooting for the moon and trying to create an organic SIMulation where all of the above factors not only exist in real time, but affect each other in a fluid and realistic manner. And this can not be easy...

 

 

But what do I know? I just fly 'em. I don't "build" 'em...

I think you have the meaning of "simulate" and "emulate" backwards, at least in a computer science perspective. Emulating means to try to make as exacting of a replica as possible, while simulate allows cutting corners to estimate the final results.

Emulating a CPU means trapping all the instruction calls from software and translating them into the host CPU's equivalent. Simulating, though, might be like pointing sound card calls to a generic device that's really just the host OS's sound subsystem. (Though modern CPU emulation can cut all kinds of corners by translating OS API calls instead of CPU instructions wherever possible.)

In this case emulating the ground radar would be modelling the behavior of a radar beam and how it bounces off things on the ground. Simulating would simply be saying "the objects are here and should have a return that looks like this."

Simulating is essentially what the other famous F-16 flight sim did because of hardware limitation of its day. Emulating? Well, if they pull it off it might be a first in computerized flight sims and I'm including "big metal" ones used in real pilot training.

Interesting, from the video i saw 2 days ago I remember that the difference between ground and sea was hardly discernible, also there was some building and airport in front that did not show as "brighter spots" due to bigger reflectivity (is that a word?) it might be related to the low resolution setting selected.

 

In any case im eager to see a bit more.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Radar returns in the Viggen are black/dark on the radar screen not bright green, it's the opposide of what you would expect. Nice demonstration/explanation of the Viggen AG radar by HB:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225862

Interesting, from the video i saw 2 days ago I remember that the difference between ground and sea was hardly discernible, also there was some building and airport in front that did not show as "brighter spots" due to bigger reflectivity (is that a word?) it might be related to the low resolution setting selected.

In Deka's video, the radar range was set up at 40 nm. Try to make out *anything* beyond orography and coastlines in Viggen's radar at the same range setup. I've been only able to differentiate landmarks at 5-10 nm in the Viggen.

I've seen radar scopes in RL (not in videos) and I can tell JF-17's radar feels very realistic.

don't be too thrilled about AG radar. If modeled correctly it should be useful only on the sea.

Hornet pilot stated "Can't comment on the radar but can only advise to get very good with TPOD"

Maybe Phil is about fulfilling a contract finishing a product we paid full price for, not for a year long+ Early access.. maybe its called professionalism, nothing to do with kiddies or whines..

 

Yeah the new car has rim tires, AC and a grate stereo that will be installed maybe next year... hey dont be ungrateful we gave you cruise control in 6 months...

 

Only in the software industry you get away with this...

 

So please refrain of treating others as idiots just because they are asking for what was agreed on the purchase contract.

I'm actually quite pleased you brought it up. Show me a single place in the Early Access agreement where Eagle Dynamics promised EA to only last 12 months or less........

Your comment ties in perfectly with my statement. You ARE whining based on an expectation you created for yourself.

Since I do not wish to get into a fight on the interwebs, I'll finish with a simple statement. I have more than gotten a return on my investment with literally every single module in DCS I own (which is basically all of them), through thousands of flight hours in both Single Player and Multiplayer. I am excited for every addition like a school-child at Christmas, but never ever have I felt betrayed. You want to know why? Because I understand what I signed up for, and because communication from ED has always been adequate. Maybe $60 means more to you than me, I didn't exactly have to go hungry at any point to afford a DCS module. But some people (and I count you as one of them based on your post) are acting as if ED are the biggest bunch of criminals and charlatans on the planet. If you want to feel real betrayal, go buy Star Wars Battlefront 2. #justsaying

don't be too thrilled about AG radar. If modeled correctly it should be useful only on the sea.

Hornet pilot stated "Can't comment on the radar but can only advise to get very good with TPOD"

Well, finding moving columns of tanks in a wide open dessert at night should work much better with the A/G radar than with the TPOD.

Well, finding moving columns of tanks in a wide open dessert at night should work much better with the A/G radar than with the TPOD.

nobody knows but a real f18 pilot

the thing is that in real life they already have the information of where the armored column is so radar is useless

nobody knows but a real f18 pilot

 

the thing is that in real life they already have the information of where the armored column is so radar is useless

In full agreement! In the real world, the aircraft relies on a huge and complex system as a trivial part of it. A lot of things don't need pilots to do. That's the responsibility of other combat units. Imagine this: the cost of procurement for a country's army is amazing. If the function is really "unusable" or "rarely usable". They will never waste precious money on purchasing useless things. They will ask suppliers to castrate useless functions in order to save as much as possible. As for JF17, one tester briefly revealed his feelings: turn on the Air-to-Ground radar scanning, then use the aiming pod to further identify the highlights on the radar screen, and then throw ammunition... Driving JF17 to attack ground targets is a new experience! Unprecedented ease, simplicity and efficiency. At present, we are far from being able to compare with the army in the real world, and the air-ground cooperation is still rather crude and inefficient. Most of the time, we need to find our own goals. I believe that the appearance of F/A18C air-to-ground radar will certainly change the rules of the game. Bring us a new experience!

nobody knows but a real f18 pilot

 

the thing is that in real life they already have the information of where the armored column is so radar is useless

In Afghanistan? Sure, they’re basically flying CAS only.

In Desert Storm? Nope. They’re actually actively searching for targets in the desert. This is where the AG radar is super useful.

That, and low-level night strikes, which haven’t been used as a tactic since Desert Storm (because it just makes no sense to do so when your target might have at best an old rusty MANPAD).

nobody knows but a real f18 pilot

 

the thing is that in real life they already have the information of where the armored column is so radar is useless

This (ever heard of kill boxes?):

In Desert Storm? Nope. They’re actually actively searching for targets in the desert. This is where the AG radar is super useful.

In Afghanistan? Sure, they’re basically flying CAS only.

 

In Desert Storm? Nope. They’re actually actively searching for targets in the desert. This is where the AG radar is super useful.

 

That, and low-level night strikes, which haven’t been used as a tactic since Desert Storm (because it just makes no sense to do so when your target might have at best an old rusty MANPAD).

Exactly this.

It all depends on the mission, and you have nearly two generations of pilots that are basically flying bomb trucks in permissive environments, back up by extensive intel, (and those strikes are usually just done by drones at this point anyway) OR working with a JTAC to put bombs near troops. The last actual air-defense environment the US fought in was in 2003, 16 years ago, and it wasn't exactly top tier. So the priority isn't on "finding" a target, you get your coordinates handed to you by the JTAC or the intel guys. You point the TPOD at said target, verify that its an armed camp and not a wedding and go do your thing.

nobody knows but a real f18 pilot

 

the thing is that in real life they already have the information of where the armored column is so radar is useless

They do have information of the general area, and if something, maybe a road they have taken. But in bad weather (that renders more often TPOD useless) the radar is the big help on deserts. It is not on woodlands and such where you have multiple vehicles (urban warfight etc) as well there.

And how accurate the TGP really should be in that era? Comparing that to FLIR systems in M1 Abrams and AH-64 Apache, you couldn't really see well that what are you even aiming at. It likely should be more about a blob on the screen when the vehicle is hot and running, while now it is so that you see all the vehicles as hot as possible. And in real world the MBT's etc are camouflaged, netted and concealed not just from visual spotting, but as well from thermal cameras. Not everything can be hidden when you have a engine running long times etc, but you will not spot those from multiple nautical miles distances at all so easily. And even less you would get a column marching in tight formation so that you can just drop a one multimunion bomb on the spot and destroy everyone, but instead every vehicle would have hundreds of meters distances between each others and you wouldn't be able to attack then more than one, maybe two vehicles at the time before units local air defense units are out and already launched few MANPADS flying toward you.

Well Yeah Doctrine and technology has change quite a bit. Now a days I doubt there is any Opfor with big concentrations of combat vehicles any more. But back in the cold war era finding this combat vehicles could be critical.

So basically yeah when we have the perfect means to find and kill vehicles, it is no longer relevant...

Well Yeah Doctrine and technology has change quite a bit. Now a days I doubt there is any Opfor with big concentrations of combat vehicles any more. But back in the cold war era finding this combat vehicles could be critical.

 

...

I think the Chinese, North Koreans, Russia, Iran, might disagree with your assessment of how many combat vehicles they have.

For the past 20 years Western airforces have mostly only been performing CAS mission in areas of the world with mostly perfect conditions for E/O sensors, in a fairly benign threat environment.

Plenty of countries have been caught out preparing for the last war they fought, only to find the next one is completely different.

Swap that for an area in Asia with a humid environment and a rainy season, an enemy who has a IADS and the ability to jam GPS, you might want to run interdiction missions with an aircraft with an a/g radar capability.

From Ru forum

Not implemented yet.

 

And no, there's no ETA yet either.

Chizh said not wait this year, and that when ED has got something to show, they will.

Chizh said not wait this year, and that when ED has got something to show, they will.

Source?