"Predicted" target distance??

Probably I'm too much used to play with western planes and hence I cannot understand the eastern-fighters philosopy, but can someone explain me why I need to manually enter a "predicted target" when attacking BVR targets with Su-27?

Shouldn't this info can be taken automatically from the radar or AWACS data-link? :joystick:

Probably I'm too much used to play with western planes and hence I cannot understand the eastern-fighters philosopy, but can someone explain me why I need to manually enter a "predicted target" when attacking BVR targets with Su-27?

Shouldn't this info can be taken automatically from the radar or AWACS data-link? :joystick:

There's actually no need to play with it in the sim. The reason to use it is that by entering it, you can be certain that the target AWACs gave you the range for will be right in the center of your scan zone (in terms of altitude) when you adjust the altitude scale. Without it, you might start scanning it at the top of the zone or bottom of the zone.

Because that's how they designed it. Instead using TDC to set expected distance to target, they added separate parameter. Without setting expected distance, expected altitude will be wrong.

The reason to use it is that by entering it, you can be certain that the target AWACs gave you the range for will be right in the center of your scan zone (in terms of altitude) when you adjust the altitude scale.

Thanks guys, but let me understand better: what are you trying to say is that it is a sort of suggestion to the radar, like: "Hey phazotron, my target should be high, left, 50nm from here so start search from there" ?

For example if you are at 10km altitude facing North and you get BRA 030/50/8, you set radar antenna to right, expected distance to 50 and expected altitude at -2, you should see the target.

Ok, so I guess that If target is already within the current radar range (CRR) there is no need to adjust predicted distance, except maybe is CRR is too high (i.e. CRR set tpo 50km with target at 10km), is this correct?

No. CRR is just a display scale. Distance of a target can be inside display scale, but still outside of radar cone if you do not set expected distance and altitude.

 

For example, you are at 6000 meters altitude and target is 3000 meters altitude, 50km in front of you, hot. You set display scale to 50, expected distance to 50 and elevation to -3. Target appears on the display. If you do nothing and just observe, target will be closing, pass through your radar cone and disappear from display. If you note the distance where target disappeared and readjust expected distance to that value, target will reappear again. What you've done with that action is practically you're lowered antenna elevation.

 

You can observe that by setting up expected distance to 100 and elevation to -3. Elevation symbol -3 will be close to horizon. If you then start to decrease expected distance, you will notice elevation -3 symbol going down depicting the change in antenna elevation angle.

 

 

Effectively, with expected distance and expected delta altitude, you indirectly set antenna elevation angle.

 

Keep in mind that you can set the same elevation angle with different expected distance/expected delta altitude combinations. So the target you see in the example above at 50km and 3km will be in cone even if you set expected distance to 100km and expected delta altitude to -6 because that combination will give you exactly the same angle as expected distance 50km and expected delta altitude -3.

Ouch!

Now I got it!

Thanks!

I think you understood but just to say it in a different way.

It may be counter-intuitive at first that you are not controlling the antenna elevation directly like Western jets, rather telling the radar distance and relative altitude and it sets the elevation for you. But that's what it is, antenna elevation control by 2 indirect numbers instead of direct.

And it makes sense in the context of Soviet interceptor doctrine, where aircraft were expected to fly in rigid adherence to ground control instructions and likely would have their radar off to reduce chance of being detected. Then, as other said above, if ground control gives you a BRAA you need to point your radar there and turn it on, find the target ASAP, you don't want to be doing mental maths to calculate what angle antenna change you need. You just punch the same numbers to the radar as ground control just told you, and presto the antenna is on the target even if it's not on.

It's a different philosophy because you are aiming the scan center at a known point, while Western jets tend to care more about defining the scan area as this lends itself better to independent air superiority sweep type operations.

More than "counter-intuitive" I think is "misleading" the way in which this system behavior is explained into the manual.

In the end, manually entering relative altitude and distance lead to a faster, more accurate target illumination and acquisition than the western "manually adjust the antenna elevation" principle.

You do exact same thing in the Eagle. You move the TDC to the predicted range, then move the elevation to the right altitude at that range. You don't care what angle is that or search manually guessing.

I dunno, I still feel the Su-27 and MiG-29 radar systems are more intuitive than the F-15 or F-18, which I have recently put many hours into. First time I looked at the F-18 radar screen, I was like "wtf is this jumbled mess?" I understand it now, but I still have a preference for the Soviet fighters.

I don't know what you mean by predicted target distance. You simply change the scale of your detection zone, just like on the F-18, from 20 to 40 to 80 or whatever it is. Elevation is controlled by notching up + or - 1000 meters, but this isn't usually necessary unless the target is way, way above or below you. Then you have the option to slew the radar left or right to find targets off your heading. I suppose the F-18 does this automatically. Still, I've always loved the HUD radar scope. Modernized flanker when, ED? I want my multiple target engagement with TWS and R-77s! I wonder if they retained the HUD scope on newer flankers.

 

I don't know what you mean by predicted target distance. You simply change the scale of your detection zone, just like on the F-18, from 20 to 40 to 80 or whatever it is. Elevation is controlled by notching up + or - 1000 meters, but this isn't usually necessary unless the target is way, way above or below you. Then you have the option to slew the radar left or right to find targets off your heading. I suppose the F-18 does this automatically. Still, I've always loved the HUD radar scope. Modernized flanker when, ED? I want my multiple target engagement with TWS and R-77s! I wonder if they retained the HUD scope on newer flankers.

Predicted target distance is used in combination with elevation. It is 10 by default at the bottom of the hud. It can have a dramatic effect on the angle of elevation.

When at 10 with +1 elevation your radar centralises +1000m at 10km range. If you set predicted at 40km with +1 elevation it would centralise +1000m at 40km range which would be a shallower elevation. Its use is for GCI calls to focus the radar on where the target is expected, eg. Bandit range 40km @12000m when you're at 3000m would be predicted set to 40km with +9 elevation.

I dunno, I still feel the Su-27 and MiG-29 radar systems are more intuitive than the F-15 or F-18,

Well, in may cases, like this one, 'intuitive' and 'counterintuitive' are subjective: I've grown up as a virtual pilot flying western planes for 30 years (F-15,m F-16, F-18 mainly) and hence I'm more experienced in western radar elevation handling.

Now, after 3+ months and 30+ hours of flight with Su-27 and Su-33 since I've opened this thread I can handle the eastern system without problems but it took a little while to get into its philosophy.

I like the Su-27 style where I don't need to care nothing about the degrees or angles. I can fully concentrate to the altitude (from the ground to the sky) and range.

The soviet philosophy was to lower the workload the pilot needs to do under heavy stress and quick moments. That lowers the training requirements as you don't need to spend so much time to learn the complex processes.

Many of the soviet aircrafts functions are based to flying the aircraft itself, instead playing around the systems to do things. So like using the RWR you are combining it with the flying aircraft direction, roll angle and even map on your kneeboard. So you can quickly and effectively place on the map the threats your RWR is giving. You fly and you automatically by flying create the geometrical mapping to pinpoint targets etc.

There are always some functions that are fancy useful, like western radars targeting gates having the altitude range the selected bars is scanning at the gate distance location.

So it is easy to see that at given range the vertical volume radar scans is between -12 and 32. So -12 000 and 32 000 feets. That is fairly nice to know that is your scanning volume.

With Su-27S I have zero knowledge that what is my scanning volume. I don't even have idea about the degrees of one bar etc. But then again, do I need to know?

If I am flying solo in Su-27S without any other help, it is little frustrating. But once I have EW radar somewhere rear or a wingman flying 10 km behind me, the datalink provides so important situational awareness that the overall picture of combat and target finding becomes breeze. It is no thinking at all to organize the attacks.

even if it doesnt make since to me i get the radar elevation and predicted target range, my question is why does adjusting target size adjust the number that the predicted size changes, at the bottom of the hud/ radar display. how does the size of the plane effect where the radar beam needs to be pointing?

9 hours ago, DukeAngus said:

even if it doesnt make since to me i get the radar elevation and predicted target range, my question is why does adjusting target size adjust the number that the predicted size changes, at the bottom of the hud/ radar display. how does the size of the plane effect where the radar beam needs to be pointing?

There is much about how radars work that feels like magic to me. So I’m hardly an expert in this area. That being said, as I understand it, the reason for the target size setting adjusting the estimated target range setting is to (hopefully) place the target in the most focused portion of the beam at the estimated range. That results in less ambiguity in the return. I don’t think it matters in FC3 aircraft at all but, if we ever get full fidelity Su-27s, it will.

13 hours ago, DukeAngus said:

even if it doesnt make since to me i get the radar elevation and predicted target range, my question is why does adjusting target size adjust the number that the predicted size changes, at the bottom of the hud/ radar display. how does the size of the plane effect where the radar beam needs to be pointing?

Su-27 has a target size setting? 

16 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Su-27 has a target size setting? 

Yes. RAlt + ”-“ and RAlt + ”=“, IIRC.

@Pavlin_33its called target specified size and when you increase or decrease, is adjusts the number at the bottom of the hud and radar screen. the same number that the predicted target range changes.

RTFM, please.

Quote

 

The expected (manual) range to target (often derived from AWACS and GCI data), as set by [RCtrl-+] and [RCtrl--] keys and is indicated at the bottom of the HUD under the azimuth coverage bar. The elevation coverage of the radar scan pattern is calculated from this parameter.

IF YOUR FIGHTER IS AT AN ALTITUDE OF 5 KM AND AWACS REPORTS A TARGET AT RANGE 80 KM AND ALTITUDE 10 KM, YOU SHOULD TURN YOUR AIRCRAFT TOWARDS THE TARGET, THEN ENTER THE RANGE OF 80 KM AND RELATIVE ALTITUDE 5 KM INTO THE RADAR. THE RADAR SCAN ZONE WOULD THEN BE CORRECTLY AIMED AT THE EXPECTED TARGET ELEVATION.

 

Yes, both RCtrl and RAlt will change the number but not at the same scale/speed - probably intentional.

Don't confuse with:

Quote

Figure 61: Gun Funnel mode
In Gun Funnel mode, a graphic funnel is displayed on the HUD to indicate the calculated flight path of cannon rounds. The distance between the sides of the funnel is based on the Target Size setting. Target Size is an approximated value of the target’s wingspan. The Target Size value can be adjusted using the [RAlt--], [RAlt-+] keys. The default Target Size value is 20 meters.
For effective fire using the funnel, maneuver the aircraft to place the funnel over the target so that the target’s wingtips contact the sides of the funnel. If the Target Size is set accurately to correspond to the target’s wingspan, you will have a good firing solution. Fire accuracy is greatest if the target’s plain of motion is matched, e.g. if the target is turning with 30-degrees of bank, you should match the turn with equal bank from behind the target. The gun funnel can only be employed from the rear hemisphere.

On 2/18/2023 at 4:22 PM, draconus said:

RTFM, please.

Shots fired

On 2/18/2023 at 10:22 AM, draconus said:

RTFM, please.

Yes, both RCtrl and RAlt will change the number but not at the same scale/speed - probably intentional.

Don't confuse with:

 

I did RTFM:

Quote

TARGET BASE (БАЗА ЦЕЛИ (Б-С-М) used for setting the target's base size when using the cannon (ВПУ) in the PREDICTED TRACK (ПРОГНОЗ-ДОРОЖКА) mode and for setting target size (V-large, S-medium, M-small) (Б – большая, С – средняя, М – малая) when using air-to-air missiles;

2 hours ago, Ironhand said:

I did RTFM

Good find, so it really is the same control in RL Su-27?

56 minutes ago, draconus said:

Good find, so it really is the same control in RL Su-27?

Yes. Same dial controls both. The same is true, for instance, of the weapon release mode switch (on the panel that includes the Master Arm switch) with its SINGLE-PAIRS-SERIES positions. The first two positions apply to both A-G and A-A weapons.

What I don’t know about the TARGET BASE switch is whether or not it actually changes the estimated target distance displayed on the HUD. Either I haven’t translated far enough into the manual yet or it doesn’t specify.

1 hour ago, Ironhand said:

What I don’t know about the TARGET BASE switch is whether or not it actually changes the estimated target distance displayed on the HUD.

Both DCS controls behave like rotaries, not 3-position switch, though.

6 minutes ago, draconus said:

Both DCS controls behave like rotaries, not 3-position switch, though.

 How they behave and how they are supposed to behave are two different things. If this were a FF aircraft, it’d be a bug. As an FC3 aircraft…it’s not something I lose sleep over.

On 2/15/2020 at 11:08 AM, LordOrion said:

 

 

Well, in may cases, like this one, 'intuitive' and 'counterintuitive' are subjective: I've grown up as a virtual pilot flying western planes for 30 years (F-15,m F-16, F-18 mainly) and hence I'm more experienced in western radar elevation handling.

 

 

Now, after 3+ months and 30+ hours of flight with Su-27 and Su-33 since I've opened this thread I can handle the eastern system without problems but it took a little while to get into its philosophy.

I've been thinking about this topic for a while, I fly mostly red planes, and came to the conclusion: doesn't the West radar do exactly the same? Isn't moving the TDC (not 100% sure if that's how the target designator is called) up 'n' down the same as adjusting the Flanker's expected target distance?
If am not badly mistaken, NATO and Soviet radars are controlled the same way, it's just that the Soviet ones care about the search "center" and the NATO ones care about search area limits.

For someone who flies blue fighters rarely, I find the radar misleading, 'cause if I set the radar at 80nm and scanning from 0 to 60K ft it seems that I will pick up targets that inside these parameters and this is really not true - learned that the hard way. What this setting does instead is basically telling the radar: "Hey, search [for a target] from 0 to 60K ft AT 80nm". If a target is at 40nm, this does not guarantee it will be picked up if it's height is above or below. But I set it to cover 0 to 60K, how come?
Soviet-styled radar is more like: point and shoot.

Also, the expected target distance will automatically position the radar's elevation to the correct angle. Antenna's tilt will not be the same for a target that is 3km below you at 10km distance and 3km below you at 80km.