Testing the Harriers CCIP Upgrade

Fantastic!!! Great job guys! Love to see this implemented...

Slowly the AV-8B turns into a deadly CAS platform. :) :) :)

+1 it works

Cool will have to try it out.

Same here... bout time to stop and go home.

Hm, ok. So basically it works alright. Reflected cue, Transition to AUTO... only cosmetic details need to be fleshed out a bit.:thumbup:

Reflected Cue currently jumps a bit away from the Bomb Fall Line, when doing hard turns where it should stay on the BFL all times... I know nitpicking, but I want to mention it, in case this is an easy fix.

Overall I need to say, the symbology and modes are getting there. Great work by the coders and now I'm back to training a bit more. :notworthy:

Does this correctly use radar/gps/baro height above ground to solve the bombing triangle?

Does this correctly use radar/gps/baro height above ground to solve the bombing triangle?

 

Believe it’s a function of ARBS will reference manual

Wait, is this currently implemented, or only in internal testing? Harlikwin wants to try it out and Kerosene says it works. Are y'all Razbam testers, or has this been released and I missed it? Thanks.

Does this correctly use radar/gps/baro height above ground to solve the bombing triangle?

 

 

Unfortunately I doubt so, RAZBAM always misses these sort of details. I don't think wind drifting is taken into account in the bombing solution either.

Wait, is this currently implemented, or only in internal testing? Harlikwin wants to try it out and Kerosene says it works. Are y'all Razbam testers, or has this been released and I missed it? Thanks.

 

 

It's already released. Tested it myself. It came with the latest open beta patch, but for some reason there was no change log.

It's already released. Tested it myself. It came with the latest open beta patch, but for some reason there was no change log.

 

Thanks!! That's great!!

One UI element that wonders me is that when it becomes automatically CCIP (soldi cross), is that bomb fall line meant to be dashed instead solid? It is a visual indicator that AUTO mode is in use instead dedicated CCIP?

One UI element that wonders me is that when it becomes automatically CCIP (soldi cross), is that bomb fall line meant to be dashed instead solid? It is a visual indicator that AUTO mode is in use instead dedicated CCIP?

I can't say for sure, why it is this way. I just can confirm from HUD videos this is accurate. Cross gets solid if inside HUD Field of View, the line stays dashed when in CCIP.

The idea to not confuse CCIP and AUTO with the solid Bomb Fall Line indicating AUTO mode, seems logical.

Believe it’s a function of ARBS will reference manual

 

I know how its supposed to work in the jet. And I know how it used to "work" (or rather not) in the earlier versions.

 

IF you have an ARBS lock on target you get the slant range (hypotenuse of the bombing trinagle) colloquially known as "TR" or track ranging.

 

If you don't have an ARBS lock, the planes MC will then use the vertical leg of the bombing triangle and you get that data from either the GPS alt, radar alt, or baro alt (as a last resort). This is the solution you will be seeing for CCIP without a lock on target.

 

IIRC you can also manually input the target altitude in the real plane or use the INS waypoint as target height. which will be more accurate than just assuming the target and the ground are at the same height. AFAIK I still can't manually enter a tgt altitude anywhere.

 

The past issues aside from the symbology were.

 

#1

The non-ARBS CCIP was unrealistically accurate as if it magically knew where the target was and was giving you that solution. I.e. initially with no WP and no ARBS lock, the altitude for the weapons defaults to 0ft. But I had no issues hitting stuff with CCIP at 5k feet. And those bombs should have been landing short, especially at the rather low angles I was using to test.

 

#2

With an ARBS lock on something you could then hit a different target at a different height/distance with good accuracy in CCIP. Your actual bombing solution should only be valid for that locked target. I.e. put a target on a hill and one 3k feet in a valley. Lock one up and you should hit. Keep that lock and use CCIP and you still hit the other target just fine, when you should miss by a mile.

 

So thats what I'm asking if its been corrected.

Wait, is this currently implemented, or only in internal testing? Harlikwin wants to try it out and Kerosene says it works. Are y'all Razbam testers, or has this been released and I missed it? Thanks.

 

Its out in OB at least. Did a 5 min test last night. I just haven't been playing much lately, and doubly so for the harrier.

Thank You Razbam for getting this feature out!

 

You just made Harrier a real beast in CAS!

 

Now it is really easy and effective to deliver the dumb bombs deadly on the targets in quick sudden moments when all those extra informations about the impact point distance to crosshair is visible and it is wonderful to fly and drop bombs all across the earth....

#2

With an ARBS lock on something you could then hit a different target at a different height/distance with good accuracy in CCIP. Your actual bombing solution should only be valid for that locked target. I.e. put a target on a hill and one 3k feet in a valley. Lock one up and you should hit. Keep that lock and use CCIP and you still hit the other target just fine, when you should miss by a mile.

 

So thats what I'm asking if its been corrected.

 

Need to test that.

 

As what I find is all these normal CCIP/CCRP systems without ranging a unrealistically accurate. Like in A-10C if you don't have a TGP giving you the range via laser, you shouldn't hit much at all on anything so accurately if you don't otherwise input the target altitude. Unless of course TGP has as well the same calculation capability that ARBS has?

 

The Su-25A/T is using the laser to calculate the range, so you get from there a accurate ranging and impact point.

 

The AV-8B should only hit accurately on targets that are on target or very near the target (on same distance from the ARBS metered point and same altitude.

 

What the Ex-Harrier pilot said, that with the ARBS to drop bombs was more accurately than even a F-18C with the Air-Ground radar.

 

Need to do that your scenario.

 

1. 1st Target on hill, like 1000ft higher.

2. 2nd Target on bottom of the valley.

3. Lock ARBS on the target at the hill.

4. Use CCIP to aim and drop bomb on the 2nd target in the valley.

 

Correct result should be that bomb will miss badly.

Incorrect result would be that bomb will impact correctly.

 

So lets see... Gonna run that test right now:

Need to test that.

 

 

 

As what I find is all these normal CCIP/CCRP systems without ranging a unrealistically accurate. Like in A-10C if you don't have a TGP giving you the range via laser, you shouldn't hit much at all on anything so accurately if you don't otherwise input the target altitude. Unless of course TGP has as well the same calculation capability that ARBS has?

 

 

 

The Su-25A/T is using the laser to calculate the range, so you get from there a accurate ranging and impact point.

 

 

 

The AV-8B should only hit accurately on targets that are on target or very near the target (on same distance from the ARBS metered point and same altitude.

 

 

 

What the Ex-Harrier pilot said, that with the ARBS to drop bombs was more accurately than even a F-18C with the Air-Ground radar.

 

 

 

Need to do that your scenario.

 

 

 

1. 1st Target on hill, like 1000ft higher.

 

2. 2nd Target on bottom of the valley.

 

3. Lock ARBS on the target at the hill.

 

4. Use CCIP to aim and drop bomb on the 2nd target in the valley.

 

 

 

Correct result should be that bomb will miss badly.

 

Incorrect result would be that bomb will impact correctly.

 

 

 

So lets see... Gonna run that test right now:

The A-10C gets the elevation from the Terrain. Elevation Database coming with the exact coordinates. There is a small margin of error when the TGP looks at a vehicle, so the actual point on the ground is 2-3 meters behind the vehicle as the Database does not care about the vehicle.

So TGP with digital map and elevation has very accurate results, as long as aircraft position and altitude is accurate.

Need to do that your scenario.

 

1. 1st Target on hill, like 1000ft higher.

2. 2nd Target on bottom of the valley.

3. Lock ARBS on the target at the hill.

4. Use CCIP to aim and drop bomb on the 2nd target in the valley.

 

Correct result should be that bomb will miss badly.

Incorrect result would be that bomb will impact correctly.

 

Made such a test, and the target at about 700-800 ft higher altitude on the hill was the target locked with ARBS, and the target bombed with CCIP was missed at the root of the mountain.

Missed range was around 500 meters or so.

 

And the ARBS calculated the CCIP cross range very very wildly, as it suddenly went to extremely close to VVI and then negative even if did fly below the target when approaching it.

The A-10C gets the elevation from the Terrain. Elevation Database coming with the exact coordinates. There is a small margin of error when the TGP looks at a vehicle, so the actual point on the ground is 2-3 meters behind the vehicle as the Database does not care about the vehicle.

So TGP with digital map and elevation has very accurate results, as long as aircraft position and altitude is accurate.

 

So that is the TAD part with combination of the TGP giving the position of SPI.

 

Yet that database for the altitude information is not so exact really, as it is just a theoretical and satellite mapped with map altitude accuracy of the 50-100 meters.

 

That was one of the advancements with the C3 company that SAAB sold to the APPLE where SAAB was capable do the couple meter accurate terrain mapping for exactly those kind tasks, but you needed to go and map the area by flying fairly low.

 

But for general areas where you have terrain elevation difference only 5-10 meters it is not so high difference as the near by area anyways is almost on same level, and we are talking anyways dropping a bomb on the target, where the bomb mission is to explode on 200-300 meter range, not to impact on the target.

Need to test that.

 

As what I find is all these normal CCIP/CCRP systems without ranging a unrealistically accurate. Like in A-10C if you don't have a TGP giving you the range via laser, you shouldn't hit much at all on anything so accurately if you don't otherwise input the target altitude. Unless of course TGP has as well the same calculation capability that ARBS has?

 

The Su-25A/T is using the laser to calculate the range, so you get from there a accurate ranging and impact point.

 

The AV-8B should only hit accurately on targets that are on target or very near the target (on same distance from the ARBS metered point and same altitude.

 

What the Ex-Harrier pilot said, that with the ARBS to drop bombs was more accurately than even a F-18C with the Air-Ground radar.

 

 

The Lightening pod does have a angle rate tracker just like the ARBS. Plus you can turn on the ranging laser which is more accurate.

 

The SU-25 does have a laser for accurate slant range determination (I actually wonder if this is how the basic FC3 game justified it, all the aircraft have either radar or the laser)

 

Yes, per the gulf war experience the ARBS was more accurate per the story. Though that was with the older F18C radar.

The A-10C gets the elevation from the Terrain. Elevation Database coming with the exact coordinates. There is a small margin of error when the TGP looks at a vehicle, so the actual point on the ground is 2-3 meters behind the vehicle as the Database does not care about the vehicle.

So TGP with digital map and elevation has very accurate results, as long as aircraft position and altitude is accurate.

 

Yeah, I've head this claim about the A10C, just never seen any docs to back it up. Which actual DTED level does it use? If its DTED0 or 1 accuracy will suck (90 and 30m "resolution"), the other levels are better but those files get very large very fast and tend to be used for smaller maps. And there are also various orthographic issues with DTED. Also, it will rely on a TGP lock, otherwise you are back to the same old ways of solving the bombing triangle to height over ground, which is how I suppose it does actually work in both platforms using GPS, but GPS spherical (in)accuracy along with DTED (in)accuracy are going to have errors that might be greater than say radar alt above ground.

 

Also TGP accuracy when in ABSOLUTE mode is not all that great and is greatly dependent on target range. With the harrier, its about 100m error at 10nm for coordinates, it might be less for the A10 but the same sources of error still exist for both platforms, the integration is better with the A10C.

 

However the TGP accuracy in relative mode, is going to be better, since you only really care about the slant range as you can very accurately get the HOT and rage to target from it. And you will be fairly close so that various errors are less.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Harlikwin

Made such a test, and the target at about 700-800 ft higher altitude on the hill was the target locked with ARBS, and the target bombed with CCIP was missed at the root of the mountain.

Missed range was around 500 meters or so.

 

And the ARBS calculated the CCIP cross range very very wildly, as it suddenly went to extremely close to VVI and then negative even if did fly below the target when approaching it.

 

Cool, thanks for doing it. Its been months since I did my first tests with this.

 

Any comment about just using CCIP over varying terrain and how that effects the calculation displayed? (i.e. is it using GPS/radar/baro height over ground when the ARBS is not locked)

Cool, thanks for doing it. Its been months since I did my first tests with this.

 

Any comment about just using CCIP over varying terrain and how that effects the calculation displayed? (i.e. is it using GPS/radar/baro height over ground when the ARBS is not locked)

 

Didn't really do a such test for that accuracy, as what I made tests first for that CCIP feature all the targets were basically on same level, maybe at the couple meter height difference. And almost all were with ARBS anyways locked or very near by (the typical units scattering).

 

Would say that 90% of the bombs hit the target as the crosshair indicated.

But really need to go validate that thing, as it should vary heavily.

 

What did I notice is that the radar altimeter can measure the altitude from the ground in any attitude.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Fri13