[LATER IN EARLY ACCESS] Viper roadmap - No AG radar?

[Dee-Jay]

Agree.

 

Radar is the heart of the F-16 weapon system (after upgrading it from pure dogfighter role to multirole) which has been designed in 70' era. No TGP, no GPS, no L16 ... A/G radar was the main sensor for targeting and navigation updates (INS updates).

Radar (and associated A/G radar modes) is the bar bone of F-16 weapon system.

 

F-18 A/G radar looks promising. F-16 will probably benefit from its core code.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[chaos]

...To be blunt. Anyone who argues that the ground radar isn't useful in DCS is doing so without considering the limitations we have in DCS versus the real world.

 

I would also hasten to add that, even in real world operations, JSTARS, JTAC etc. aren't always available. I would even guess that this is more often the case than not.

 

Ground radar is _very_ useful in my opinion. Besides, it's a fundamental feature of the aircraft and ought to be simulated in order to have a complete module.

[jetkid]

AG radar - A matter of time and priorities.

 

Just to clarify: I never questioned the fact that ED will model the AG radar.

They will do it, they announced it as part of Phase 2 (Product Sustainment) features.

ED is a serious company that aims at realistic modules (for the commercial field); it will not disappoint the customers who have supported DCS with the purchase of a module in EA status (F-16 in this specific case): before moving to the stable version, all the promised features will be completed; I'm sure about that.

 

My perplexity is different. It's a matter of time and priorities.

 

The AG radar in the survey for the Hornet was among the top priorities, I don't understand how it can be different for the Viper ...

 

Does anyone have a link to view the survey results?

 

Thank you.

 

ps

To be blunt. Anyone who argues that the ground radar isn't useful in DCS is doing so without considering the limitations we have in DCS versus the real world. If we had JSTARS and more agile JTAC/AFAC AI assets, it would be different but we don't. Without those things, ground radar suddenly becomes as useful as it was in Desert Storm.

[AG radar] it's a fundamental feature of the aircraft and ought to be simulated in order to have a complete module.

I fully agree with both of them, they explained the reasons why I am trying to understand what moves around this de-prioritization of the AG radar

Edited August 16, 2020 by jetkid

[Fri13]

Just give me a proper TAMMAC capabilities and it becomes easier to use it for targeting and searching the mission areas than A-G radar.

 

- Standard NGA raster products (old aeronautical charts)

- terrain elevations (digital terrain elevation data, Level I)

- Satellite imagery (5 and 10 metre resolutions)

- Vector overlays

- Vertical obstructions (database of towers and other potential hazards to low flying aircraft)

- ESRI shapefiles

- Tactical warfighter symbology (MIL-STD-2525)

- Airfield data (Digital Airfield Flight Information File)

- Military Flight Zones (Weapons Engagement Zone Overlays)

- Pilot to set and display multiple waypoints, multiple routes between waypoints, non-linear (serpentine) legs

- Latitude/longitude and MGRS grids

- Threat Overlays

- Display points and polylines from vector geospatial information and metadata

- Vector settings file to allow pilot define various attributes associated with relevant vector features, color, font, display priority, declutter level (ie. restrict shown airfields to minimum length based metadata)

- Digital Terrain Elevation data with sun angle shading in 2D

 

 

Sadly the F-16C doesn't seem to support TAMMAC.

 

 

How important and valuable a A-G radar is compared to be able point on a accurate map the area with individual building accuracy?

That you hear from the radio the map grid and you hear guides what to look for when working with recon team. Or when a ground units can see what your TPOD is showing to you, so both pilot and ground team are looking the same thing and can talk over radio what to do.

 

Pilot having no visuals is a problematic scenario, same way as it is to have a radar operational if enemy has a passive sensor system that is limited to line of sight, it will detect the fighter performing A-G mapping that as well requires line of sight to scan the terrain. This if the fighter is not detected by the radars as well. So going for high value targets (airbases and such) should be very risky if not impossible.

 

A map can't show you troops locations or movements. That is what you need other means. Is the A-G radar magical for that? In DCS it is. It will likely just point you them without any realistic limitations, and anyways when DCS doesn't even try to simulate the ground troops realistic tactics and doctrines, it is a moot point to try have A-G radar realistic one when targets are not going to be realistic ones. As the whole idea "You are a pilot, you are going at this area (points a 2000 square kilometre area on map) and todays mission is to destroy whole brigade there... Go!".

And then we have A-10 pilots doing the similar thing without radar... When it was known that in given area there are no friendlies but just enemies. So stupid stuff happens.

[Glide]

You make an excellent point on the JF-17. Theses automation systems are in other, closely related aircraft. There is way too much workload in the F-16 with respect to target acquisition in both the DCS and BMS Vipers. Look at history of the F-16 and the previous 2-seat designs. Target acquisition has to be a simple click of a switch: select next target. I find the idea of Viper drivers slewing radar cursors around while flying laughable. Not in a single-seat jet of this modern vintage.

 

 

 

The functions are the same as the Lantirn: navigation and terrain avoidance, target acquisition automation, FLIR overlay on the hud.

[Jester2138]

I find the idea of Viper drivers slewing radar cursors around while flying laughable.

 

Obviously the pilot is going to move the cursor over the target manually if he wants a particular one. I don't know why anyone would find that laughable, so I assume you're talking about the pod. Still, why is it laughable? Even with J-Stars, pilots would get directed to a general area and have to find and identify the actual target by working the pod over an area to recce it.

[Glide]

Obviously the pilot is going to move the cursor over the target manually if he wants a particular one. I don't know why anyone would find that laughable, so I assume you're talking about the pod. Still, why is it laughable? Even with J-Stars, pilots would get directed to a general area and have to find and identify the actual target by working the pod over an area to recce it.

 

 

It's a small detail, but the use of the term "slew" is the key here. Yes, the analog controls have the ability to move the radar cursor around manually, but I believe the reality is that the system can track 8 targets, and a simple TMS right should cause the radar cursor to jump to the next target being tracked. It should cycle through them with a simple click. We should not have to slew the cursor, bug the target, drop the bug, slew the cursor, bug the target, etc. It should be TMS next, TMS next, bug, lock, fire. Does that make sense? Just like when you TAB between fields on a form. You don't have to use the arrow keys to move the mouse cursor. When the pilot selects TMS next or TMS right the cursor should jump or cycle to the what the Lantirn thinks is the next highest threat.

 

 

I see the same behavior in the DCS F-16 model. This functionality has been modeled in other flight sims. I don't see why the community wouldn't model this in their F-16's.

Edited August 17, 2020 by glide

[toilet2000]

I'm sorry being the one telling you this, but Santa Claus doesn't exist.

 

If you don't believe me, do yourself a favor and have a look at the files in your DCS installation. You should start with the \Scripts folder.

Soon you'll figure out that outsite the ultra realistic cockpits, start-up procedures and inert training bombs, everything about DCS World is ultra simplified, generic and very far from realistic; missiles and radars in particular.:smilewink:

 

There’s a very distinct difference between emulation and simulation.

[Fri13]

Sorry, I had the same argument with the Falcon 4 community back when we were "fixing" the bugs the community version. I see the same behavior in the DCS F-16 model. This functionality has been modeled in other flight sims. I don't see why the community wouldn't model this in their F-16's.

 

It is up to a real engineers and system designers who ever made the F-16 systems.

 

In DCS we can have a two modes.

 

1) Game Mode

2) Sim Mode

 

In the game mode we have always the functions of "Target Closest Enemy", "Target Closest Enemy From Reticle", "Next Target" and "Previous Target" etc.

 

But in the sim mode we have "TMS right", "TMS left" etc, and the game needs to obey the real system functions that what it would do in the mode and scenario where it is.

 

So does the real F-16 have a such function?

In the A-A mode one can automatically track all the targets in the scan and jump between targets easily. But that doesn't automatically mean that same functionality is in the A-G mode.

 

So while it would be logical that whoever designed the system, would use that same sub-routine and logic interchangeable regardless the master mode, as it is after all "radar targets on the scope".

 

Many things in these systems are that pilot would be "Why they didn't do this?" and sometimes they might be right that it should be there, but if no one knows about it in the public information etc, it doesn't likely get in the game either.

 

Example one could think that having a TPOD active one could just switch between found targets from radar with press of a button, and then TPOD would always automatically jump there if it is slaved to radar.

 

But it has taken lots of time to get from F-16 to F-35 where lots of automations are done. But nothing is more annoying than fight against the system own will to do things that you don't want it to do. Why lots of them are strictly in the "If I do not command this, do not do it".

 

So does the real variant we have in the game, have the "TMS right" to switch between the possible targets on the A-G radar track?

If so, then it likely is coming if ED knows about it. If the real system doesn't have it, then it doesn't get there.

And if BMS community has not already added such a feature, is it possible that it is not there?

[Fri13]

There’s a very distinct difference between emulation and simulation.

 

Yes there is. It is just a deniable truth for many that how simple the DCS World really is when it comes to combat.

 

It can have a best of the industry simulation for the cockpit systems, flight modeling (at least in the entertainment industry) and details for systems logic (hydraulics, electronics etc).

But when it comes to anything else outside the cockpit, it falls to apart and hard in rude and harsh simplicity. The game is closer to a 90's Flanker game than example average RTS game like a Wargame European Escalation from decade ago. Even a old "Close Combat" game series has far more realistic troops simulation.

 

The DCS was not designed for what people want it to be. It is getting there, but it requires reprogramming of the all the core functions. And ED is currently working for it. Again a new terrain engine, a completely new AI, a new mission generation and so on. We know very little about these things what ED is doing, but I have high dreams but I am prepared to be let down with simplicity.

 

As too many players here are ready to play with a "I am a rockstar" mentality where they just want to see stuff go boom. They don't want the challenges and real limitations and all.

 

Like alone that players would not be able use their A-G radars to spot ground units that has been trained to conceal their positions and existence from all possible enemy observations.

Soldiers trained to hide from FLIR, hide their vehicles from A-G radars and FLIR. Hide their tracks and positions from visual and electronic recon. Use means to spot enemies and share that information with others.

 

That doesn't exist in DCS. We have a "A-G radar should just find all the units on the desert and let us to flick through them and bomb them to hell" -attitude way too popular. It is like fighting a war on real sandbox with plastic soldier figures and go "bang, you are dead".

 

We could simulate lots of things, but it would require that lots of things are cheated but properly. And that means the we need to have multiple AI's, that are all separated from each others. That they don't have any knowledge of each others. There are cheat AI's that sole purpose is to restrict access and information to other AI's that things stays in fair and expected.

 

One cheating AI purposes is to avoid irrelevant processing for simulating things that doesn't matter. Like you have a AI unit on the desert alone? You need to have properties for that unit like how far it can see, how fast it can react, how easily it can spot something in its line of sight etc. But if you run a system with that simple manner for 500 units on the desert, you bring the CPU to its knees fairly quickly. So you need to have a separate "cheating AI" that will restrict all those AI's from operating until they are in the situation where such checking is required to be simulated. So you do not use any CPU processing to perform any checking in those 500 units on the desert, until cheating AI knows that unit #132 and #76 are coming close together, and then cheating AI will activate those units AI simulation to check out when they could spot out each others. And not until they find out the other, nothing else is simulated in them. There is no processing for the unit health, its alarm status, its moral, its capability to aim or shoot etc.

Only when each step goes further, are their AI's allowed to simulate more.

 

This way you can have 50 000 units on the map, and only the units that are in actual combat with each others gets processed by simulation by their own individual AI's.

And as anything is not expected to happen in a second, there are plenty of resources to be used to run thousands of units on the map.

 

In reality if a two squads find out each others in a forest or in a urban area, they do not kill each others in 50 milliseconds. It takes multiple seconds, minutes or hours. Because both sides has will to survive, will to obey their commands, moral to keep fighting, and fear level when to stay in control.

Each soldier has their individual skills to spot enemy and hit something that was spotted.

 

When a two squads can take a long time to get even couple casualties in their engagement, it doesn't need to be simulated in less than that time.

It is waste of resources to have each unit checking everything once per second. A ship alone at sea checking once a second is there other units near it? Waste of processing....

We can have extremely high level simulation for all kind units from individual crew members etc. But it all needs to be restricted by a cheating AI that decides when something is required to work.

This way you don't either have a unit alone somewhere panicking because they fail to see anyone.

 

And one major difference that people should accept is that DCS World can not be like a any other RTS game. It should instead be like a reality. And reality means that you don't know a * about what is happening.

A individual soldier knows very very little what is happening. In a combat the soldier knows where is the squad leader and where are few other squad members. There is some information where the squad is relation to the platoon and maybe general locations where the other teams are (like we are the leftmost squad in a platoon). Then comes other higher level information as where the company is (Our company mission is to defend this part of the city) and maybe at higher level as well that where another company is (the Charlie company is five kilometers east of us).

It requires time and communications to know who is where, what they are doing and what is the situation. A individual soldier doesn't know what another company 3rd platoon is doing.

A pilot flying above the friendlies do not know where everyone is, or what is each soldier status. It comes to communications and rules how to work in a fog of war.

 

Why does someone expect that DCS World should not simulate that? Why it should be that we know exactly where every single unit is located?

For a pilot it is enough to know that what is their mission, how to contact the others and especially those who can get them in contact with unknown friendlies.

 

So lots of time goes to just finding out what is happening, where something is and is it a friend or enemy. And that is what DCS World should simulate. That one doesn't have anything exact. No magical 100% accurate information of units positions and such.

And there are great games that try to simulate these things. Example "Radio Commander" is great in this regard, as you only know what is coming over radio and you need to use that information to visualize yourself what is happening and make commands based to such obscured information.

The "Armored Brigade" is great for a RTS game where it is counted for the communication delays. When something is spotted, it takes time to report it. It can be very generic information about location or type. When you issue commands, it can take minutes before units start to react to it. So you can not do any micro-management as in combat you have no time to waste to tell someone "move 5 meters to right!" but it is commands of "You take that 100 meter area, hold it!".

 

And that is what DCS World should be about. Why we need proper IFF simulation, proper communication delays and decayed quality, inaccuracies, false information, limited information and all.

Only a "game leaders" should know about real status so they can maintain the order of the game. But everyone participating to fly or drive or dive, should be inside "fog of war". So a DCS:CA player doesn't know where others are than "1st Company is at the east side of the city, responsible for countering enemy coming from north-east". Nothing about what there is, how many there is, what is the situation.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Fri13

[DrBackJack]

And if BMS community has not already added such a feature, is it possible that it is not there?

 

I guess MIDS is not there.

[deadpool]

I really like your posts, so please don't take it the wrong way, but ..

edit out the letters of the other sim, or we might all lose your good posts to deletion.

[Astronaut]

My perplexity is different. It's a matter of time and priorities.

 

The AG radar in the survey for the Hornet was among the top priorities, I don't understand how it can be different for the Viper ...

 

 

Simple answer is the Hornet was much more complete at the time of the survey compared to the viper. Viper still lacks harms, HTS, mavericks, jsows, jdams, WCMDs, etc, 90% of ded and MFD pages. A cruise page would be more useful right now than A-G radar in my opinion. For a platform that shines as a SEAD plane you kinda need to round out some of the standoff weapons. A-G radar is pretty useless if you don't have the tools to attack the target once you find it. Priority 1 should be the HARM and the HTS. Then round out the rest of it's weapon options. At that point it'll be closer to where the hornet was when they started focusing on A-G radar. It'll come, it's just (rightfully IMO) not a current priority it seems.

[Dee-Jay]

Theses automation systems are in other, closely related aircraft. There is way too much workload in the F-16 with respect to target acquisition in both the DCS and BMS Vipers. Look at history of the F-16 and the previous 2-seat designs. Target acquisition has to be a simple click of a switch: select next target. I find the idea of Viper drivers slewing radar cursors around while flying laughable. Not in a single-seat jet of this modern vintage.

 

 

All what I am reading about "radar is obsolete" ... is "true" today on limited operations scenarios against "terrorists".

Everyone bet on TGP (good weather only), L16, JSTARS ... etc ... ok ...

 

All those stuff are working, only, and exclusively IF you have GPS available (or equivalent sat positioning systems)

 

... Think about it.

 

Suppress/deny/spoof/Jam GPS ... instantaneously, radar and eyeballs MkI becomes (again) the primary sensors.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Fri13]

Suppress/deny/spoof/Jam GPS ... instantaneously, radar and eyeballs MkI becomes (again) the primary sensors.

 

Not exactly so.

 

The INS has come far more accurate and reliable in time.

And having a TPOD is not about GPS, but it is about laser guidance.

 

And it is still the primary method to actually know what you are attacking, what is situation "down there" and so on.

 

AV-8B Harrier has this fancy ARBS (Angle Rate Bombing Set) system that does targeting visually super easy.

 

But it is limited:

- fixed 6x magnification

- no FLIR

- gimbal limits about 70 degree(or was it 60?)

- contrast lock based

 

With the ARBS there is DMT (Dual Mode Tracker) that offers two modes, TV for day-time and LST (Laser Spot Tracker) for day- and night-time. So when you are operating with the ground forces, you can have them designate target with laser and you still get it for targeting.

 

With a FLIR for navigation on HUD, you get to fly and see where you fly at night.

 

The Litening (TPOD) should be offering similar capabilities, except now you have a Wide FOV to search an area, and Narrow FOV for closer look. But we do not have realistic zoom limitations with much inferior (blurry) images and all that.

 

To perform strikes and CAS, one doesn't even need an radar, day or night.

You have a map to know where you are flying, you have briefing done for the target so you know what you are looking for, and you have TPOD easily designated for the programmed target point.

 

The idea of the A-G radar is more about that you would be a "lone wolf" with task to "go on this area" and search for enemies that no one knows are there, so you would just turn the radar On and get "blocks" for the target and then expand the area to "take a look" and bomb all.

 

The GPS jamming and all doesn't affect the A-G radar, but it doesn't make it more effective either. As if GPS is taken away from you, you can't just utilize the GPS guided weapons.

All laser guided (primary) weapons work. All "dumb weapons" work as always.

All you need to do is to get to know where to go and what to look for.

 

Like how many here can not find a target like a airfield by using a digital moving map and targeting pod? Night or day?

How many can not fly over such a target area with designated target area for bombs without GPS and radar?

 

Our digital moving map sets in Hornet and A-10C (and likely in Kiowa Warrior) are very old and limited from the real ones that allows more data, more zooming and more detailed data to engage targets with a accuracy of single building. You are looking the same map as the ground commander and you know when it is said "third house from the east on the northern hill of X and Y".

[Basher54321]

All what I am reading about "radar is obsolete" ... is "true" today on limited operations scenarios against "terrorists".

 

Everyone bet on TGP (good weather only), L16, JSTARS ... etc ... ok ...

 

All those stuff are working, only, and exclusively IF you have GPS available (or equivalent sat positioning systems)

 

... Think about it.

 

Suppress/deny/spoof/Jam GPS ... instantaneously, radar and eyeballs MkI becomes (again) the primary sensors.

 

 

Well said - thanks for the input DJ!

[Dee-Jay]

Hi Fri13!

 

Topic is about F-16. I don't speak (nor know) about the AV-8.

 

The INS has come far more accurate and reliable in

time.

 

Yep. But still drift with time.

Not speaking about possible future star-tracker systems, how will you update you IRS/EGI by night/bad weather without a ground mapping radar (not even always possible with a radar, but much easier/versatile than finding visually then overflying a preplanned landmark ...)

Considering an average normal drift of about 0.5Nm/H (which is already fairly good), what kind of air to ground attack tasks can you still consider if you can't update your position before your attack run? ... visual CAS/SCAR in permissive/semi permissive area ... what else? ... (this is a real question, not a rhetoric question?)

 

Regards.

 

 

EDIT:

All laser guided (primary) weapons work. All "dumb weapons" work as always.

 

 

Good weather only.

Only way you can still BOT without a direct visual is a radar assistance. (Of course, list of possible targets is much shorter!)

 

 

Like how many here can not find a target like a airfield by using a digital moving map and targeting pod? Night or day?

How many can not fly over such a target area with designated target area for bombs without GPS and radar?

 

 

Good point. But I do not feel concerned. All I need is my drawn chart, compass and my watch to be on TOT at +/-30s. What other ppl can do or not "is not my concern". ;)

Edited August 17, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Glide]

My bad, I watched Wag's TMS automation video. Still training! :)

[Fri13]

Hi Fri13!

 

Topic is about F-16. I don't speak (nor know) about the AV-8.

 

Yes, I used example of the AV-8B N/A Harrier capability to perform combat without radar on the time when targeting pods didn't exist, because it has own optical targeting systems - that got later replaced with a TPOD (Litening II).

 

 

 

Yep. But still drift with time.

 

Sure it does, but not so badly in normal flight and between updates.

 

Like example the simplest form of the navigation is that you can update your bearings (location) time to time and confirm your position in the route you are moving.

In a AJS-37 Viggen you use that A-G radar to designate a ground point and then fly over it and mark it to system that you are above it.

 

In a Mi-24 you have a moving map that is literally a map board inside a map box, that has a two-axis plastic crosshair moving around it based doppler radar measurement of ground movement when you fly. To update where you are, you use simple two dials in the map to reposition the crosshair to location where you see you are.

 

Not speaking about possible future star-tracker systems, how will you update you IRS/EGI by night/bad weather without a ground mapping radar (not even always possible with a radar, but much easier/versatile than finding visually then overflying a preplanned landmark ...)

 

If you can't see outside by any means, you can't tell where you are by any other navigation means like beacons and such, then you are completely reliable with the A-G radar to mark the known location with it so system can sync your bearings to it.

 

But considering that enemy has means to track you by you using a radar, radio or any other means of emissions, you are revealing yourself to them and giving huge early warning about the attack. And using just a radar as only means as "eyes outside" and for attacking, it is risky business as you are as well vulnerable for jamming your radar so you are completely blind, or using it to shoot you down regardless what ECM/CM you have while you are nose hot at the target area.

 

Considering an average normal drift of about 0.5Nm/H (which is already fairly good), what kind of air to ground attack tasks can you still consider if you can't update your position before your attack run? ... visual CAS/SCAR in permissive/semi permissive area ... what else? ... (this is a real question, not a rhetoric question?)

 

What level of accuracy you need to know your position if you are required to perform attack visually?

 

Good weather only.

Only way you can still BOT without a direct visual is a radar assistance. (Of course, list of possible targets is much shorter!)

 

Actually you can regardless the weather conditions to you, if the weather conditions for the weapon deployment and second party laser guidance is possible. You can drop bombs through the cloud layer that is at lower altitude for target that is designated by a ground troops.

 

Good point. But I do not feel concerned. All I need is my drawn chart, compass and my watch to be on TOT at +/-30s. What other ppl can do or not "is not my concern". ;)

 

If there is so bad weather that visibility is basically zero, that you barely know which way is North and where is the ground etc. It is likely that many attacks are postponed unless only possible then or critical.

When previously alone a night was severe limitation, the means were found for that. Even a simple illumination rocket / bomb etc in a mist, night, rain etc is visible so well that one can go and drop bombs on it.

Very bad weather will not affect to A-G radar operations but likely more for the other elements too considering the operations success and of course enemy as well.

So there is always a place for the A-G radar when all else starts to fail.

That is why I am waiting a lot of the A-G radar features as it allows to do these fancy all-weather all-day missions in a bad weather that previously was not possible. So don't take it wrong that I don't want it etc. As I might sometimes be little masochist in my missions where example I have 1-2 hours to fly in a zero visibility scenario, with a limited fuel reserve in the target area and then need to get back to base and to do that depends a lot of fuel management.

And I haven't done that even with Hornet so much at all as I have with Su-25A. For me it is somewhat relaxing to fly a mission purely by instrument flying and then try to complete the attack with only one try.

For me it is fun to example take a Mi-8 and fly from shore to moving ship for a 200 km in a mist and cloud cover where my visibility is about 300-500 meters. And that without even radio beacon navigation but just by purely using a map, compass and watch like you say. To intercept a ship there and land to transport equipment is "fun".

 

So when new A-G modes comes out, it just opens a lot of new possibilities to make missions with multi-role fighter. But I don't want it to be unrealistic where it is too easy and capable that it shouldn't be. So you need to fight with the real limitations when working just with the radar.

I just think that on that moment the Viggen gets far less flight time, as fun it is to fly with its A-G radar, it seems to be little too capable.

 

Edit: corrected one quote code.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Fri13

[Dee-Jay]

We can chitchat during hours me saying the glass is half full you saying it is half empty. :smilewink:

 

My point is that A/G radar, is, the heart of F-16's FCC, and to me, has a higher priority for consistence than AGM-65 or ARM ... or ... any other weapons. But a lower priority than the airframe itself (Aka FM/FLCS, DED/MFDs, ALT Gear, HYD, Engine ... etc ...).

 

 

Anybody can disagree with my personal POV which is not the absolute universal truth. And it is fine. We can still be friends. :thumbup:

 

Kind regards!

Edited August 17, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Fri13]

We can chitchat during hours me saying the glass is half full you saying it is half empty. :smilewink:

 

To me the glass is always full, 50% liquid and 50% gas.... :-P

 

My point is that A/G radar, is, the heart of F-16's FCC, and to me, has a higher priority for consistence than AGM-65 or ARM ... or ... any other weapons. But a lower priority than the airframe itself (Aka FM/FLCS, DED/MFDs, ALT Gear, HYD, Engine ... etc ...).

 

Well, I don't hold up so much for it as it shouldn't be so capable or special for overall. But as I said, opens up a nice set of new missions etc. I take it over many flight modeling or damage modeling systems as long those are not damaged from the ground threats properly, it is no sense to have them so highly modeled first.

 

 

I have now spent good time in Hornet to search targets in various scenarios as the EXP3 mode came out and it is little splitting the hair between "useless" and "Yeah, I see that town" level.

So I want to wait that the A-G radar API gets finalized, likely not until new terrain engine comes out, so I don't see that way reasons to horry it up for Falcon as I leave it out very gladly for the moment.

[Jester2138]

When the pilot selects TMS next or TMS right the cursor should jump or cycle to the what the Lantirn thinks is the next highest threat.

 

How would the LANTIRN know what is the next highest threat? It has no idea what it's looking at. That's what the pilot and slew commands are for...

[Fri13]

How would the LANTIRN know what is the next highest threat? It has no idea what it's looking at. That's what the pilot and slew commands are for...

 

Target identification != Target Recognition.

 

Target can be recognized by the A-G radar by detecting something that is something human made like a building, vehicle or similar.

Like in a SEA mode you would get the recognized ships as that you are switching between. On the ground it could be a GMT1 that detects the moving targets that you can switch between them.

 

The more advanced A-G radars has even target identification after they have been recognized. This way you can get a list that how many APC, MBT, Trucks etc there are in the area. You get priority targets like SAM, AAA and such listed. But I don't think any of these are for the Hornet or Falcon, as it requires a millimeter wave radar like AN/APG-78 LONGBOW for Apache. And you had previously a short 6-8 km detection range that is upgraded in E model up to 12-16 km.

 

So what glide is talking about is how a LANTIRN sends a request for next target to radar in A-G mode that has recognized targets, prioritized them in order and then radar tells coordinates for it, and LANTIRN is slewed automatically on those coordinates, try to recognize the target position by FLIR and lock on there for automatic tracking.

 

That is similar way how it works on the AH-64 Apache.

 

The similar feature came to KA-50 with the new targeting system, that automatically scanned, detected targets (based IR signature) and tracked multiple targets that pilot then could just select and guide missiles at them.

 

The optical systems can be used for automatic contrast detection (easier with a high IR signature contrast) like what the famous Tic-Tac UFO WSO did, slewed the TPOD front of the path and then tried to acquire a lock with large area mode and the system could recognize the UFO IR signature against the sea background and get tracking quality lock on it without any information that what it is looking at.

[Jester2138]

The Apache has a millimetre wave radar that is high-resolution enough (and subsequently short-ranged) that gives it the ability to do that target recognition. Unless you know something the public doesn't, the radars in Hornets and Vipers don't have that ability. The UFO thing is just the pod doing a contrast lock. It has no idea what it's locking on.

[Fri13]

The Apache has a millimetre wave radar that is high-resolution enough (and subsequently short-ranged) that gives it the ability to do that target recognition.

 

Yes, as I explained.... We do not have that capability.

 

Unless you know something the public doesn't, the radars in Hornets and Vipers don't have that ability.

 

Did I say otherwise?

F-35 does start to have that capability because far more impressive radar. Our radars in F/A-18C Lot 20 and F-16C Blk 50 are so old compared to most modern radars that.... It is barely good that you can even find the airfield (again, a HUGE target) from the ground, good just to find where is a large river, where is that huge bridge crossing that river or where is the harbor. Rest becomes less or more just "blob on blob".

The DCS doesn't even simulate the round troops that primary mean to survive is concealment from the detection of all kind observation, visually, electronically, audible. No spotting via FLIR, no spotting by binoculars, no spotting by tracks, heat, or anything. A well done work by the vehicle ground crew is such that you can walk in the forest and you will literally hit your head in the tank armor when you move through the trees. You will walk and fall in the fox hole. You will walk in a camp and find yourself to be inside a tent. That is not simulated at all in the DCS. You can't find vehicles with radar even if they are middle of the desert when you have enemy that has even basics gone through.

 

The UFO thing is just the pod doing a contrast lock. It has no idea what it's locking on.

 

As I explained.... It doesn't know WHAT it is locked on, but it is extremely smart to recognize the heat signature from the surroundings, knowing that is the target it should track on. The lock gate is widest possible set by the WSO, the system is commanded to track a heat signature, and it detects the small heat source inside the widest possible target gate and it will lock around it and start tracking. We do not have that capability as we do not have systems that detects or tracks on heat, they are searching for a object ID in the game that is required to be in given size in the gate to be tracked. That is because we are completely lacking even semi-realistic contrast detection system. Our TPOD even magically locks and stabilize itself on the ground perfectly without knowing what distance it is really looking at. That is because it knows the terrain engine position and will keep tracking that. In reality you would have max 5-10 meter terrain height map data in the TAMMAC that system knows little bit that what is the surface altitude under pipper or TPOD crosshair, but it would still be moving around and require corrections as there is no contrast where to lock on.

 

The argument was that TPOD wouldn't know from anywhere that what would be "next target", while in reality it would know, as when you have example a A-G radar in a GMT mode and it would detect some moving ground targets, those are targets the targeting system prioritize as targets and TPOD should be able be switch from target to target with just a button. No, it it wouldn't know is the target a car, a sedan, a truck, a APC or a bicyclist. It would just know "there is a moving object, mark it as a target" and then let the pilot just switch between detect targets on A-G radar and slaved TPOD to then jump between all targets that is switched to.

 

It doesn't need to know what type of target there is, only information where to look at.

Same way like in the A-A mode where the radar will detect the aircraft and you can slave the TPOD on the radar, and it will jump looking at the direction where radar is telling it to look. Now if you have smart TPOD, you have a contrast detection system that would have change to find the contrast of the object and start automatically track it optically instead just based radar coordinates.

 

Like here is one of the old targeting systems for KA-50Sh.

 

It had a contrast detection system that you could use with FLIR. While the system was in automatic scanning (moving across the field front of helicopter) the system could detect contrast (heat signatures) and start tracking them while scanning more.

 

Similar way with Falcon you just have TWS going and it prioritize you the targets and you can jump from one to the another with press of a button. Same way one could think that A-G radar system allows pilot to switch between each detected ground object that it could list in order. Pilot then can do the validation that what is a proper target and what not, just keep pressing "Next" until wanted is on TPOD screen.