air to ground radar

hi guys, can someone please explain how to distinguish ground targets?!? i mean is full of blinking white things, how can i understand what is a ground vehicle?!?

hi guys, can someone please explain how to distinguish ground targets?!? i mean is full of blinking white things, how can i understand what is a ground vehicle?!?

you are not suppose to. It is not a JSTARS level of radar.

9LkJQbjfdtE

aHlx97_dj1I

We would be talking about F-35 for a capabilities that people often think, that just turn radar on and detect ground units.

And even on coming EXP3 you should have very difficult to separate two if in same size or spot one.

So if you know center of flat desert is a M1 Abrams at given crossroad, you might be able to find it via radar.

And if modern ground units would get semi-realistic behavior, they would hide from it and your FLIR.

ok, so is much more important preop planning, briefing and land knowledge than ground radar. i have been searching a sa 13 with the radar say when i was 4 or 5 miles out of it...i did not spot it but he did and wreck me...

so what is the real empliment of the ground radar?!?when real pilots use it?!?

Most real pilots (from what I hear) hardly ever use the AG radar in the first place, given the advantages of using a targeting pod instead. Even once we get the EXP modes that use Doppler Beam Sharpening to produce a higher-resolution image, it will still never be as good as a targeting pod (aside from the primary advantage of working through clouds). You can look up real-world images of what AG radar looks like, and you can see how it may be useful for finding large landmarks or vehicles (e.g. parked aircraft, large installations or SAM systems), but smaller vehicles and you'll be hard-pressed to make out what it actually is without having an idea of what's supposed to be there in the first place (e.g. briefed locations).

That being said, AG radar (again, as I've heard) was "fairly" useful during the Gulf War, when targeting pods weren't as great as they now, especially given the generally flat terrain in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

so what is the real empliment of the ground radar?!?when real pilots use it?!?

I would assume that it's mostly used for ground mapping and in SEA mode to find ships. To find vehicles and bunkers etc, they use the TGP i guess as it's much easier to ID targets with it.

Had a feeling this was going to happen.

There has been much theory crafting going on regarding the viability of the AG radar (much like the paddle switch and over Ging the hornet). If it is all that you have, obviously it is better than nothing. But it isn't all that we have unless you intentionally make it so on your mission designs. As far as distinguishing the difference between a large rock and a tank, welcome to radars and ground*things*.

Opinion: I believe what gamers hoped it would be, are going to allow those expectations to start dictating what they think it should be. And if it does not meet those expectation, bug reports will be filed regardless if it is "realistic" or not.

I would think there would be things more desirable to request development on than this. ... accurate weather on all clients maybe so we can do more than cavu weather missions, things that make the playing field level between players for example, fix the ground effect, etc.

For what it is worth.

Had a feeling this was going to happen.

 

There has been much theory crafting going on regarding the viability of the AG radar (much like the paddle switch and over Ging the hornet). If it is all that you have, obviously it is better than nothing. But it isn't all that we have unless you intentionally make it so on your mission designs. As far as distinguishing the difference between a large rock and a tank, welcome to radars and ground*things*.

 

Opinion: I believe what gamers hoped it would be, are going to allow those expectations to start dictating what they think it should be. And if it does not meet those expectation, bug reports will be filed regardless if it is "realistic" or not.

I would think there would be things more desirable to request development on than this. ... accurate weather on all clients maybe so we can do more than cavu weather missions, things that make the playing field level between players for example, fix the ground effect, etc.

 

For what it is worth.

yeah...I don’t know how much ink I wasted on this topic..

But everyone was just too excited to blame ED for taking too long to give them the AGR to understand that it is not a magic bullet but just a tool in a toolbox...and not the smartest one

In the Super Hornet sim one of the features I liked messing around with was auto acquisition of moving targets mostly for strafing.

Also, I wish I still had the vid I made at the time showing my only attempt to use terrain following mode in 0 vis, in the hills. I survived but if I had to do this in RW...:huh:

Had a feeling this was going to happen.

 

There has been much theory crafting going on regarding the viability of the AG radar (much like the paddle switch and over Ging the hornet). If it is all that you have, obviously it is better than nothing. But it isn't all that we have unless you intentionally make it so on your mission designs. As far as distinguishing the difference between a large rock and a tank, welcome to radars and ground*things*.

 

Opinion: I believe what gamers hoped it would be, are going to allow those expectations to start dictating what they think it should be. And if it does not meet those expectation, bug reports will be filed regardless if it is "realistic" or not.

I would think there would be things more desirable to request development on than this. ... accurate weather on all clients maybe so we can do more than cavu weather missions, things that make the playing field level between players for example, fix the ground effect, etc.

 

For what it is worth.

Harpoon use sucks without SEA mode, especially since we don't have 3rd party assets to provide SURPIC.

AG radar starts with the Hornet, and even if the interest has faded away with GPS and targeting pod, AG radar API will be paramount for other modules people are waiting for (A-6, A-7 and so on…). It would be useful to play Desert Storm scenario with F-15E too.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4381/f-15-strike-eagles-over-saudi-arabia-then-and-now

So yes, it was about time we get AG radar in DCS World.

hi guys, can someone please explain how to distinguish ground targets?!? i mean is full of blinking white things, how can i understand what is a ground vehicle?!?

we only have Real beam mapping.

This mode only gives a broad picture. It is not even giving high fidelity of terrain let alone expecting this mode to spot ground vehicles, becuase it is essentially a raw radar return with little processing resulting out edges of a generated map to be extra blurry relative to portion of the map inwards.

with EXP modes ( particularly EXP3) youl have considerably better fidelity of terrain features, and be able to make out that certain blobs are ground vehicles, however you will really need ground moving target indicator for the radar to generate synthetic rectangles against moving targets that are ground vehicles for easier spotting.

In Vipers in the Storm, Keith "Rosey" Rosenkranz mentions using radar mapping frequently in low visibility and dropping bombs (apparently CCIP) on a radar-locked diamond based on what he knew the target looked like on a map. Other parts he'd find ground vehicles using Ground Moving Target (not implemented, but uses Doppler to see things that are moving as opposed to stationary) before locking a Maverick-D on them (with some difficulty, again due to weather and smoke).

Desert Storm was fought in ugly weather and dense smoke from oil fires and it wasn't uncommon for flights to RTB due to poor visibility. Laser, TV and even IR is useless in poor visibility. There's a reason the JDAM was invented.

So basically the glorious F-18 has copied the ground radar from the Viggen? :lol:

Discalimer: I'm a Swede so biased Viggen but still love the F-18

Here's an idea...

Let's just wait until it's finished and all it's features are implemented before making judgments about its usefulness.

ok, thks for the info, now is much more clear

Had a feeling this was going to happen.

 

There has been much theory crafting going on regarding the viability of the AG radar (much like the paddle switch and over Ging the hornet). If it is all that you have, obviously it is better than nothing. But it isn't all that we have unless you intentionally make it so on your mission designs. As far as distinguishing the difference between a large rock and a tank, welcome to radars and ground*things*.

 

Opinion: I believe what gamers hoped it would be, are going to allow those expectations to start dictating what they think it should be. And if it does not meet those expectation, bug reports will be filed regardless if it is "realistic" or not.

I would think there would be things more desirable to request development on than this. ... accurate weather on all clients maybe so we can do more than cavu weather missions, things that make the playing field level between players for example, fix the ground effect, etc.

 

For what it is worth.

+1 A/G mode in a hornet with EGI, moving map, tpod lgb and jdams...

I have a hard time to see a use to it.

Now, indeed for early days missions, fine

I understand too that the API will be used for other jets but I would have rather seen other stuff solved before implementation of that AG stuff...

Just one opinion...

There's a reason the JDAM was invented.

JDAM was invented so you can drop bombs on already known locations, learned from other sources of intelligence than fighter radar.

It is like someone comes from intelligence tell that there is a X target in this area. The command decides that it is to be taken out in given time. When the time comes, pilots are ordered to fly the mission against it. Days or weeks is spent to plan the mission. Everyone related to the mission is briefed, their requirements are asked, everything in the area is considered, from threats in area, friendlies on area, the weather requirements, time of day etc.

And then you take-off with the JDAMS programmed for the coordinates using the latest intelligence that where target exactly is. You fly the mission, you drop the JDAM as planned and you get home.

No need/use for radar... You only care that your aircraft position is accurate and you need to have GPS and bomb INS well synced so you get to drop bombs.

If you have high value target, you can't use your radar. You are signaling to target that "here I come to bomb you". And if enemy is anyway prepared for modern combat, you can't see them in your radar screen. Not with your FLIR. But if enemy wants you to find something, they can lure you in with nice target, only to engage you with something you didn't expect.

There is this fancy idea to be applied for the 90's tech that pilots will wake-up, eat breakfast and jump to their planes that are loaded with weapons they want. And then off they go to "kill bad guys". They will turn their radars On and sweep the enemy territory, spot all vehicles and positions, and the will decide "what I would bomb today?" based to what they see on their radar scopes.

As important it is to destroy enemy, it is as well important to know when not to destroy enemy.

There might be large strategy going on that no pilot knows. So even if you know where enemy is, you can see them. You are not allowed to engage them by any means, or reveal that where you are. So you might get stupid sounding daily orders, disallowing you to engage specific areas or enemies, not allowed to shoot enemy only air tanker even if it would be flying straight front of you.

so last thing any general wants, is own pilots soloing around and blowing stuff up they are not suppose to.

if mission is to patrol given area or fly to given area and be weapons free, that is another case.

But that is like typical DCS mission...

And this is why DCS really requires a improvement to communications and intelligence, so we would actually get recon pods, we would need players to land their aircrafts back to base. We need means to take photos from area and get them to be only information of enemy positions among other sources of communications.

So that missions would become about dealing with old, unreliable and fuzzy information. So you wouldn't know exactly what is where and what.

And a such a risk for every player that they must accept that returning to base by canceling mission because sudden enemy fighter patrol forced them to retreat. Instead taking risks and engaging them and possibly get shot down.

Why air quake, 100% accurate information etc is just unrealistic and bad,even if enabling fog of war etc.

we need a system where it takes time to get information from spotting to us, and it needs to be realistic manner incomplete and shady.

But we can't even in mission editor now do a random unit location. We can't add a specific unit on map and say "in begin of mission, randomly appear anywhere 2 km from this point. No easy way to just set each unit in group to have random probability to be spawn. Instead we need to go and add scripts, add units on exactly known positions and then set triggers to define "if this group ain't here, then this group has 30% change".

But now true randomness to add unknown.

In some other game it is very easy to make completely random mission each time as those two kinds settings exist on each unit. And never will the mission play same way.

What makes it far more interesting to repeat same mission again and again as it keeps you on your toes.

And in DCS case, it would be exactly that information for target for that JDAM is old from previous day intelligence reports, and it has moved between briefing and take-off. So you go and you drop bombs on location that doesn't anymore matter.

Things happens, but not so much in typical DCS.

And as DCS doesnt really require or offer mission briefings and such, players take-off for already known or completely unknown targets and then it is wanted a A-G radar that would be magically revealing enemy units that are on map.

 

I understand too that the API will be used for other jets but I would have rather seen other stuff solved before implementation of that AG stuff...

I am waiting a JHMCS ground designation capability, if our USN hornets are even capable for it.

As there are so many DCS limitations that allow me safely spot visually targets but no time to turn nose on them to get designation on them or fly over them. But capability look at them and get designation there is huge. That is so fun in KA-50 to be able pop-up for few seconds and designate targets by storing them to KABRIS. If the HMS wouldn't exist, it would be far more difficult and I would gladly take a co-pilot with me to do all that.

No, JDAM aren’t only for pre planned targets. There are plenty of evidence of fighters loaded for CAS and waiting for targets of opportunity with JDAM, or dual guidance system like GBU-49 to have flexibility.

GPS guided bombs can guide through clouds and smoke.

GPS guided bombs are fire & forget, IRL laser guidance has much more limitations than in simulator (take care about not changing the face of the building you are targeting during guidance, laser spot size compared to target when you are targeting a vehicle and so on...).

So there are pro and cons for each guidance system, and this is why having having both loaded on the plane during some kind of missions is great, having a weapon that can combine both guidance is even better (L-JDAM, Paveway IV, AASM...)

Having fighters looking for targets in “kill boxes” can happen too depending on situation and ROE.

There are plenty of different situations, military will use whatever is available and best suited to get the job done.

But yes, some kind of “fog of war” would be cool.