Will EXP3 mode of air to ground radar be optimized and improved?

[kaoqumba]

We have heard people talk about the apg73 radar we use. The imaging accuracy of SAR is comparable to that of F15E. But the performance in the video is more like a further amplification of exp2. It is far from reaching the "satellite photo level" imaging effect of SAR imaging. The radar echo of the object still appears to be a highlight point without the contour of the object. Is that the end result? Or is EXP3 still in WIP stage strictly speaking?:):)

[QuiGon]

Wags mentioned in the recent Hornet mini update, that the Viper will get Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) as an additional ground mapping mode. That sounded like the Hornet does not get such an advanced mode.

[Swift.]

Wags mentioned in the recent Hornet mini update, that the Viper will get Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) as an additional ground mapping mode. That sounded like the Hornet does not get such an advanced mode.

 

DBS is how APG73 does EXP1 and 2. It has less resolution to a SAR map.

 

 

And to the OP, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything about APG73 AG mode other than its utter rubbish.

[VirusAM]

Will EXP3 mode of air to ground radar be optimized and improved?

 

Wags mentioned in the recent Hornet mini update, that the Viper will get Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) as an additional ground mapping mode. That sounded like the Hornet does not get such an advanced mode.

 

 

 

Exp1 and exp2 in the Hornet are DBS1 and DBS2 while exp3 is SAR.

The Hornet agp-73 is more advanced then the Viper agp-68. In fact the Viper doesn’t have SAR mode (at least the one we have in DCS).

Simply AG radar is not a so good tool for targeting as other sims (less accurate in system modeling and more simplified) might let us thinking.

It is a system with many limitations in real life.

It is good in bad weather to see a general target location and refine it later. But generally speaking the TGP is more useful and much more precise

[Home Fries]

Radar gives you "big picture" items so you can see major points like mountains, cities, water, and sometimes roads (depending on material/prep level and surrounding areas). It's great for navigation and SA, but more difficult for precise targeting. You can find your target area using the AG radar (or even targets if using a doppler mode like GMT), but this gets you into the ballpark for a refined targeting solution using a pod.

[pimp]

Radar gives you "big picture" items so you can see major points like mountains, cities, water, and sometimes roads (depending on material/prep level and surrounding areas). It's great for navigation and SA, but more difficult for precise targeting. You can find your target area using the AG radar (or even targets if using a doppler mode like GMT), but this gets you into the ballpark for a refined targeting solution using a pod.

This is exactly right, HF, which is why I didn't understand why it was such a high priority. Don't get me wrong, it's good we have it, but using the pod seemed better. I felt those A-G radar resources could've been used on other projects. It's cool we got it though.

[Mars Exulte]

This is exactly right, HF, which is why I didn't understand why it was such a high priority. Don't get me wrong, it's good we have it, but using the pod seemed better. I felt those A-G radar resources could've been used on other projects. It's cool we got it though.

 

It was prioritised because of the number of nits whinging about it. Those who realised its more limited utility weren't making the fuss.

[Oceandar]

It was prioritised because of the number of nits whinging about it. Those who realised its more limited utility weren't making the fuss.

Lol +1

[LastRifleRound]

No one whines more about AG Radar than the people who whine about those who are excited about it. There's not a post about the topic you gits don't intrude in on and suck all the value out of the room.

 

OP had a legit question that you spouting your emotional exposition did nothing to answer.

 

What he's referring to is a big problem in DCS, that is sensor's general inability to recognize static objects as themselves. This impacts the Viggen, which needs its radar in many cases to register static objects, and it can't because of DCS lmitations. This invariably will effect the A7 as well. This is also a problem with the TPOD seeing "through" targets, laser ranging basically not existing, and will effect the timeliness of both FTT, AGR, and laser ranging. They're all tied to together and necessary for accurate simulation.

 

However, instead of getting to have that discussion, we have to bat away 4 or 5 of the same people making sure we know how little pilots used it and how you're so much better for not caring. Of course, you still care enough that we have to see the same damned opinion in every otherwise productive discussion on the topic.

 

I don't expect the AG radar to be good at everything. I DO expect it to recognize structures exist, and so does ED, which is why you don't see FTT yet, because sensors don't really register these objects yet.

 

If you don't find any of this interesting, good for you, but I bet OP does and his money is just as green as yours and his blood just as red, so you can sit the hell down.

 

To OP, I suspect the update that will carry FTT and AGR will constitute a major change to DCS in that your senors will now react to these objects. They are likely going to be given radar and laser reflectivity values, though I do not know if the render will support multiple values for an object (essentially 3d) or just one value per object (2d). Either way, you can expect to be able to use more realistic procedures for your bombing when this happens. "Scoop up" attacks in CCIP should now be possible. I also expect there will be penalties for accuracy if these modes aren't used. Right now, the Hornet always gets 100% accurate slant range because AGR is "on" all the time in CCIP (even if you have the MAP up in AG radar, which should not be possible). Once this is modeled, this is something you can get wrong and your procedures will have to adjust to ensure you're getting good slant ranges. Also, if the TPOD isn't corrected to recognize the objects first via laser ranging and an actual tracking model, then FTT will be MORE accurate IN SIM, as it will be recognizing the actual object in space, and not just the raw 100% accurate slant range at some point on the ground irrespective of the object.

 

Whether this works it's way in to the render of these objects on the radar, it's hard to say. I'd be surprised if many of the static objects you can place show up at all at first. If they do, then that may be a reasonable enough approximation of EXP3. It is notoriously "blobby" in real life and the image quality is NOT as good as an F15E, as the F15E can make patch maps much smaller (and therefore higher res), than the Hornet.

 

As for hitting a pre-briefed static target you have a briefed image of? I don't see why you COULDN'T use this mode along with FTT to deliver ordinance accurately, and no one on these forums, other than talking about resolution, seems to be able to offer any counterpoint as to why that might be. Sure, if I was a real pilot and I had a TPOD or coordinates, I would never us it, either. After all, I have a job to do and the best tool is the TPOD, no question. But I'm NOT a real pilot, and this is something interesting to delve into. Why not create a campaign with no TPODS? It's not like the default campaign in the Hornet takes place in NINETEEN FREAKING EIGHTY-NINE.

Edited August 17, 2020 by LastRifleRound

[Mars Exulte]

Pre-2000s you'd pretty much be exclusively using dumb bombs, anyway, in a realistic setting, including in desert storm. I'd expect best case you'd be using AG radar for final orientation on a landmark or obvious feature like Wags did in his video and then using your eyes and stick to actually conduct a dumb attack.

 

If you don't like dissenting opinions a public discussion forum isn't for you, LRR, if you're more into read only blogs or curated comments where you can delete the ones you don't like and ban their posters. Otherwise, you're just gonna have to suck it up. But if your wall of text complaint makes you feel better have at it @@

[Cytt0rak]

Looks like CEO of derailing topics are here already, :lol:

 

Nevermind, I agree to OP there were questions about this two years ago with pictures in the link below.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202523

[LastRifleRound]

Pre-2000s you'd pretty much be exclusively using dumb bombs, anyway, in a realistic setting, including in desert storm. I'd expect best case you'd be using AG radar for final orientation on a landmark or obvious feature like Wags did in his video and then using your eyes and stick to actually conduct a dumb attack.

 

If you don't like dissenting opinions a public discussion forum isn't for you, LRR, if you're more into read only blogs or curated comments where you can delete the ones you don't like and ban their posters. Otherwise, you're just gonna have to suck it up. But if your wall of text complaint makes you feel better have at it @@

 

Dissenting opinion? Saying "Ag radar sux" is a few synapses short of just bleating "bahh bahhh" around here. Don't flatter yourself.

 

The dude who spends half his posts getting butt hurt about features other people want is going to come in here and tell me to suck it up.

 

People want AG Radar. YOU suck it up.

Edited August 17, 2020 by LastRifleRound

[wowbagger]

Insult everyone who has a different opinion and then try to pass it off as a 'dissenting opinion' and act as if it's perfectly normal public forum behaviour.

 

 

 

Typical.

[BarTzi]

We have heard people talk about the apg73 radar we use. The imaging accuracy of SAR is comparable to that of F15E. But the performance in the video is more like a further amplification of exp2. It is far from reaching the "satellite photo level" imaging effect of SAR imaging. The radar echo of the object still appears to be a highlight point without the contour of the object. Is that the end result? Or is EXP3 still in WIP stage strictly speaking?:):)

 

Looks comparable to me ...

[Mars Exulte]

Dissenting opinion? Saying "Ag radar sux" is a few synapses short of just bleating "bahh bahhh" around here. Don't flatter yourself.

 

The dude who spends half his posts getting butt hurt about features other people want is going to come in here and tell me to suck it up.

 

People want AG Radar. YOU suck it up.

 

Lol there's nothing for me to suck up. AG exists, and I'm fine with it. Dude asked why a non-essential and resource intensive feature was prioritised over seemingly more relevant items... That IS why lol

 

Sorry (not) my posts in days passed touched you in a sensitive area, I hope it has no lasting effects and the psychological trauma passes lol

[LastRifleRound]

Lol there's nothing for me to suck up. AG exists, and I'm fine with it. Dude asked why a non-essential and resource intensive feature was prioritised over seemingly more relevant items... That IS why lol

 

Sorry (not) my posts in days passed touched you in a sensitive area, I hope it has no lasting effects and the psychological trauma passes lol

 

You wish you could touch anyone in a sensitive area. Turns out starting sentences with "lol" isn't great for that sort of thing.

 

Only one salty here pal is you. I'm good here.

[Caster]

Lol there's nothing for me to suck up. AG exists, and I'm fine with it. Dude asked why a non-essential and resource intensive feature was prioritised over seemingly more relevant items... That IS why lol

 

Sorry (not) my posts in days passed touched you in a sensitive area, I hope it has no lasting effects and the psychological trauma passes lol

The reason so many people find AG radar relevant is because we don't have the kind of surveillance or ground controller options available to us that would preclude the need for AG radar. There's another similar thread with a comment (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4455518&postcount=25) stating the difference in experience between trying to blindly find ground targets in the viper and the jeff. It SUCKS trying to do it in the viper, ground radar makes it way smoother. So yeah, you're going to come across as unpleasant when you moan about "the number of nits whinging about it. Those who realised its more limited utility weren't making the fuss." Not only is it rude, but not helpful, and subjectively wrong

[jasonbirder]

Whilst I understand current US doctrine is for either TGp based or co-ordinate based targetting...to the point AG radar isn't used operationally for bombing in "most" tactical planes such as the F/A18 & F16

 

 

SURELY that's a product of current operations though...IE: Generally unimportant targets, low strategic importance, small numbers of troops at risk etc in what are typically dry environments (middle-east/south-west asia) against opponents with limited capability...

 

 

In a "peer-level" conflict with genuine consequences surely the "If I can't see it on the TGP and/or drop a JDAM on it from 15,000ft" doctrine would be revisited...

 

 

China and/or Russia have significant GPS jamming/ASAT capability...making total reliance on GPS guided munitions problematic, North-West Europe, Southern China experience long periods of significant rainfall which renders TGP use (and particularly FLIR) difficult and/or impossible...

 

 

In that environment with say, heavily outnumbered and lightly armed rapid deployment troops desperately defending a river crossing against a couple of Motor Rifle Divisions in Lithuania or with a big stack of PLA Ground Force infantry brigades bearing down on them in Fujian province...would the answer for support really be..."sorry you'll need to wait for the F15Es...we can't drop a dirty great stick of CBUs on a radar offset"

[whiteladder]

Whilst I understand current US doctrine is for either TGp based or co-ordinate based targetting...to the point AG radar isn't used operationally for bombing in "most" tactical planes such as the F/A18 & F16

 

 

SURELY that's a product of current operations though...IE: Generally unimportant targets, low strategic importance, small numbers of troops at risk etc in what are typically dry environments (middle-east/south-west asia) against opponents with limited capability...

 

 

In a "peer-level" conflict with genuine consequences surely the "If I can't see it on the TGP and/or drop a JDAM on it from 15,000ft" doctrine would be revisited...

 

 

China and/or Russia have significant GPS jamming/ASAT capability...making total reliance on GPS guided munitions problematic, North-West Europe, Southern China experience long periods of significant rainfall which renders TGP use (and particularly FLIR) difficult and/or impossible...

 

 

In that environment with say, heavily outnumbered and lightly armed rapid deployment troops desperately defending a river crossing against a couple of Motor Rifle Divisions in Lithuania or with a big stack of PLA Ground Force infantry brigades bearing down on them in Fujian province...would the answer for support really be..."sorry you'll need to wait for the F15Es...we can't drop a dirty great stick of CBUs on a radar offset"

 

+1 Very well put!! I have just had 2 weeks holiday in the UK on the South Coast with some of the best summer weather we have ever had on a holiday here with 30C+ temps and it still rained for 3 days, and you would have been able to use a TGP for about 1 hour each day around Noon! The rest of the time the haze and clag was so bad I couldn`t tell where the horizon started and sea ended.

[Mars Exulte]

+1 Very well put!! I have just had 2 weeks holiday in the UK on the South Coast with some of the best summer weather we have ever had on a holiday here with 30C+ temps and it still rained for 3 days, and you would have been able to use a TGP for about 1 hour each day around Noon! The rest of the time the haze and clag was so bad I couldn`t tell where the horizon started and sea ended.

 

Well, if it came down to it, there's always carpet bombing and dumping on coordinates you were directed to via INS or guesstimation. It isn't precise, but that's how they did it back before TGPs AND AGR :p There is no problem that cannot be solved with the liberal application of high explosives. Except CAS. You kinda need to know what you're shooting at with that one... but otherwise, more bombs = less problems.

[Fri13]

Looks comparable to me ...

 

 

Would be nice to know that what airbase is in that video from decades ago.

As looks to be extremely flat area, with water around it.

 

Need to as well remember that a airfield is very easy target, just like a harbor/port on the shore. You get so strong contrast with the surroundings and terrain itself where the targets are, like aircraft parked on the concrete/pavement.

 

Does the A-G radar work for that? Sure, that is in line with the pilots statements. But when it comes to everything else, troops in the forest, troops inside the cities and towns and such, it becomes completely different thing to deal with.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202523

 

Hopefully there as well comes the simulation for the "supersampling", where you keep scanning the area and you collect more data and so on get more detailed picture of the overall as you get to cancel out all kind noise and even things out.

 

I am little unimpressed about the method that ED seems to use to simulate the A-G radar. But it is WIP so lot of things can change in future (and should) that would make ground units far safer from the A-G radar becoming unrealistically OP.

[Fri13]

Well, if it came down to it, there's always carpet bombing and dumping on coordinates you were directed to via INS or guesstimation. It isn't precise, but that's how they did it back before TGPs AND AGR :p

 

It is easy to understand why the AGM-65 came to play with 30-50% pK when a Mk.82 bomb had about 4% pK when dropped in large amounts against a single tank.

 

But as you don't need to kill everything/everyone to be effective, as long you get close to.

Still, deadliest of the all is the artillery.

 

http://tanks.mod16.org/2014/03/10/report-on-protection-from-fragments-from-he-ammunition/

https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

 

Sadly we do not have the fragmentation modeling for A-G and A-A ordinance so lots of destruction are uncounted for. Luckily we are going to see changes in damage modeling in later on, so we should see far nicer 250 kg Mk.82 HE bombs effects vs 44kg 155 mm shell.

 

So it would be far better results "get it close" than now that is almost "get it hit".

Eventually A-G radar without a TPOD and using just AUTO/CCIP mode should come very effective.

[Kev2go]

No one whines more about AG Radar than the people who whine about those who are excited about it. There's not a post about the topic you gits don't intrude in on and suck all the value out of the room.

 

OP had a legit question that you spouting your emotional exposition did nothing to answer.

 

What he's referring to is a big problem in DCS, that is sensor's general inability to recognize static objects as themselves. This impacts the Viggen, which needs its radar in many cases to register static objects, and it can't because of DCS lmitations. This invariably will effect the A7 as well. This is also a problem with the TPOD seeing "through" targets, laser ranging basically not existing, and will effect the timeliness of both FTT, AGR, and laser ranging. They're all tied to together and necessary for accurate simulation.

 

However, instead of getting to have that discussion, we have to bat away 4 or 5 of the same people making sure we know how little pilots used it and how you're so much better for not caring. Of course, you still care enough that we have to see the same damned opinion in every otherwise productive discussion on the topic.

 

I don't expect the AG radar to be good at everything. I DO expect it to recognize structures exist, and so does ED, which is why you don't see FTT yet, because sensors don't really register these objects yet.

 

If you don't find any of this interesting, good for you, but I bet OP does and his money is just as green as yours and his blood just as red, so you can sit the hell down.

 

To OP, I suspect the update that will carry FTT and AGR will constitute a major change to DCS in that your senors will now react to these objects. They are likely going to be given radar and laser reflectivity values, though I do not know if the render will support multiple values for an object (essentially 3d) or just one value per object (2d). Either way, you can expect to be able to use more realistic procedures for your bombing when this happens. "Scoop up" attacks in CCIP should now be possible. I also expect there will be penalties for accuracy if these modes aren't used. Right now, the Hornet always gets 100% accurate slant range because AGR is "on" all the time in CCIP (even if you have the MAP up in AG radar, which should not be possible). Once this is modeled, this is something you can get wrong and your procedures will have to adjust to ensure you're getting good slant ranges. Also, if the TPOD isn't corrected to recognize the objects first via laser ranging and an actual tracking model, then FTT will be MORE accurate IN SIM, as it will be recognizing the actual object in space, and not just the raw 100% accurate slant range at some point on the ground irrespective of the object.

 

Whether this works it's way in to the render of these objects on the radar, it's hard to say. I'd be surprised if many of the static objects you can place show up at all at first. If they do, then that may be a reasonable enough approximation of EXP3. It is notoriously "blobby" in real life and the image quality is NOT as good as an F15E, as the F15E can make patch maps much smaller (and therefore higher res), than the Hornet.

 

As for hitting a pre-briefed static target you have a briefed image of? I don't see why you COULDN'T use this mode along with FTT to deliver ordinance accurately, and no one on these forums, other than talking about resolution, seems to be able to offer any counterpoint as to why that might be. Sure, if I was a real pilot and I had a TPOD or coordinates, I would never us it, either. After all, I have a job to do and the best tool is the TPOD, no question. But I'm NOT a real pilot, and this is something interesting to delve into. Why not create a campaign with no TPODS? It's not like the default campaign in the Hornet takes place in NINETEEN FREAKING EIGHTY-NINE.

 

 

The "nearly as good" or "comparable to" F15E resolution comes from the manufacturer claims with the APG73 Phase 2 upgrades, which were specifically made to adress shortcomings from Medium resolutions SAR and upgrade it to "High resolution SAR". That being said the APG70 itself got A/G further enhanced to " very high resolution" SAR capabilities circa 1997ish, so the F15E likely very well does have even better ground mapping capabilities relative to the Phase 2 series APG73

 

 

I think what we might ended up in DCS judging by the quality is only the APG73 Phase 1.

 

Phase 2 could certainly do better quality SAR maps than what was presented in DCS.

 

 

From a 2003 paper

 

 

 

https://www.omgwiki.org/hpec/files/hpec-si/HPEC-SI_CIP_Demonstration.pdf

Edited August 17, 2020 by Kev2go

[Swift.]

Considering what you are all saying about how apg-73 should be great at sar mapping, then it should be very straight forward for you to source a SME who can attest? No?

 

There are certainly numerous SMEs who have attested to the contrary.

[Kev2go]

Considering what you are all saying about how apg-73 should be great at sar mapping, then it should be very straight forward for you to source a SME who can attest? No?

 

There are certainly numerous SMEs who have attested to the contrary.

 

 

No one saying its great. And anyone saying it sucks? Its all relative to what it is compared to.

 

Maybe your discord "SME" from the now cancelled SH mod said so because they flew jets that only had APG73 Phase 1 and not the Phase 2?

 

Or perhaps because of that 1 specific individual that i think you are referring are said it was sucky because is now been flying SH for many years and thus ends up comparing memories of the APG73 to the APG79 AESA radar? So you cannot get a good idea on how the SAR really is if it is only in the vaguest terms and only relative to a AESA radar as a comparison from a few discord tidbits.

 

 

In any case all this drama could be avoided if only ED had clarified which APG73 version we were getting for certain.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Kev2go