Question about the functionality of the GMT radar mode

[sirrah]

I was wondering; In Wags video you see a few moving targets in GMT mode on the right DDI.

 

As for a deserted location (like a desert for instance), I can imagine how the radar is able to pick up these targets. But how does this work in high density urban areas, with moving vehicles everywhere?

 

Is it safe to say that GMT mode can only be used in open field situation? Or did they develop some sort of extraordinary system capable of filtering out specific moving targets? (something that filters out certain radar shapes perhaps?)

 

 

 

 

oh, and by the way:

 

Those clouds!! 

[Scaley]

The era of system we have modelled in the DCS Hornet would be picking up anything moving that's above the filter speed.  In an urban area with civilian traffic it would be totally useless.  There are other systems around that have a library of radar signatures and could attempt some filtering for specific contact types. The Longbow radar on the Apache, for example, will attempt to categorize things as wheeled, armour, tracked, artillery, etc based on radar signature.  That, however, is a millimetre wave system (higher frequency than our radar) so has better spatial resolution to be able to pick out details on the targets and then match that against it's database.  

[Harker]

On a side note, I'm very curious to see if the GMT mode will pick up civilian traffic in DCS.

[sirrah]

25 minutes ago, Harker said:

On a side note, I'm very curious to see if the GMT mode will pick up civilian traffic in DCS.

haha, hence my question too 

 

However I expect it won't, as in DCS civilian traffic are like ghost units

[Bunny Clark]

5 hours ago, sirrah said:

However I expect it won't, as in DCS civilian traffic are like ghost units

Not totally ghosts ... I had a head-on collision with one just yesterday while trying to land on a road. 

[Harker]

24 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

Not totally ghosts ... I had a head-on collision with one just yesterday while trying to land on a road. 

You can also track them with the TPOD in PTRK mode. The main issue is that they only render closer to the player, so they're not consistent objects in the game world. I also tried with the A/G radar in MAP mode in EXP3 and although I could see them with my TPOD, EXP3 only showed completely empty roads.

[Fri13]

7 hours ago, Scaley said:

The era of system we have modelled in the DCS Hornet would be picking up anything moving that's above the filter speed.  In an urban area with civilian traffic it would be totally useless.  There are other systems around that have a library of radar signatures and could attempt some filtering for specific contact types. The Longbow radar on the Apache, for example, will attempt to categorize things as wheeled, armour, tracked, artillery, etc based on radar signature.  That, however, is a millimetre wave system (higher frequency than our radar) so has better spatial resolution to be able to pick out details on the targets and then match that against it's database.  

 

And regardless that Longbow is far more advanced in that regard, it is not so capable as paper says (as Apache pilot has said, it is a let down in action).

 

Similar thing should likely be with Hornet, just for the SEA mode to have some use and leave it off for ground operations.

[Scaley]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

And regardless that Longbow is far more advanced in that regard, it is not so capable as paper says (as Apache pilot has said, it is a let down in action).

 

Similar thing should likely be with Hornet, just for the SEA mode to have some use and leave it off for ground operations.

Yes indeed - a lot of these systems have real world performance that falls somewhat short of what they can deliver under ideal conditions, and what the manufacturer quotes!  

[chase]

Pressing the left side top button "Map" Doesn't do anything for me. It just stays on the ground mapping. I can only press sensor ctrl R two times and it will lock random moving targets, but no matter what i do, i can not get the sweeping line with the ability to choose a target. Ie no GTM Radar mode.  Probably will need to wait till another instructional video. Looks easy,  but not working for me. Sure it's user error.

[rob10]

1 minute ago, chase said:

Pressing the left side top button "Map" Doesn't do anything for me. It just stays on the ground mapping. I can only press sensor ctrl R two times and it will lock random moving targets, but no matter what i do, i can not get the sweeping line with the ability to choose a target. Ie no GTM Radar mode.  Probably will need to wait till another instructional video. Looks easy,  but not working for me. Sure it's user error.

What you're missing is the fact that it's NOT YET IN THE GAME .  What Wags posted it more of a teaser or pro-active training, but we won't see it until the next beta update is released (sometime after Jan 11 based on a Bignewy comment, but no idea exactly when)

[chase]

3 minutes ago, rob10 said:

What you're missing is the fact that it's NOT YET IN THE GAME .  What Wags posted it more of a teaser or pro-active training, but we won't see it until the next beta update is released (sometime after Jan 11 based on a Bignewy comment, but no idea exactly when)

Oh!. That explains it. Well looks like some of the functionality is already there, but not very useful lol. Thank you for letting me know. I figured the hotfix added it. Oh well,  will be a nice addition for sure.

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, chase said:

Oh!. That explains it. Well looks like some of the functionality is already there, but not very useful lol. Thank you for letting me know. I figured the hotfix added it. Oh well,  will be a nice addition for sure.

 

Hopefully you didn't lose night sleeps for not being able do something .

As was said here in early, the ED teams comes back to work at 11th (or 12th?) and they start to prepare for next updates for this year so if we are lucky, we get it in a month or two. Typically Wags has promoted the Open Beta features just week before release.

[QuiGon]

I also wonder if the GMT mode will pick up low flying helos?

[Joni]

On 1/5/2021 at 11:08 AM, Harker said:

On a side note, I'm very curious to see if the GMT mode will pick up civilian traffic in DCS.

 

That's a hard one.

 

In one hand we have the fact that if it doesn't pick them up the realism will drop dramatically. On the other hand we have the difficulty in doing so, given the dcs engine.

[chase]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Hopefully you didn't lose night sleeps for not being able do something

You nailed it. Two xanax later after being up all night in distress,  i finally got some rest. Thank you for looking out.

[twistking]

are there other real worlds limitation to that mode?

 

in wags video it looks "too good to be true". wouldn't this technology also have led to more advanced ag-missiles. higher range mavericks with initial datalink-guidance f.e.

i cannot really believe that there are no other big limitations on how and when you can rely on this technology...

[Joni]

13 minutes ago, twistking said:

are there other real worlds limitation to that mode?

 

in wags video it looks "too good to be true". wouldn't this technology also have led to more advanced ag-missiles. higher range mavericks with initial datalink-guidance f.e.

i cannot really believe that there are no other big limitations on how and when you can rely on this technology...

 

I think it's an IFF issue. You will never know what you are targeting until you can VID. So range benefit will be low.

[twistking]

Just now, Joni said:

 

I think it's an IFF issue. You will never know what you are targeting until you can VID. So range benefit will be low.

good point. however this will probably only apply to low-intensity / asymmetrical conflicts. in a symmetrical war you could probably estimate the intention of a cluster of solid returns rolling towards friendly positions. that said, maybe this is just another one of the reasons why things like the sa-15 tor exist...

[Joni]

3 minutes ago, twistking said:

good point. however this will probably only apply to low-intensity / asymmetrical conflicts. in a symmetrical war you could probably estimate the intention of a cluster of solid returns rolling towards friendly positions. that said, maybe this is just another one of the reasons why things like the sa-15 tor exist...

 

Yes, good point too. I think during a real war the rules of engagement are so tight that no matter how obvious something is but until a complete matrix has been completed no fire can be done.

 

It happens even with tight ROE matrix, imagine how bad it'll be if the intentions of a return would be determined by its location only.

[Fri13]

22 minutes ago, twistking said:

are there other real worlds limitation to that mode?

 

in wags video it looks "too good to be true". wouldn't this technology also have led to more advanced ag-missiles. higher range mavericks with initial datalink-guidance f.e.

i cannot really believe that there are no other big limitations on how and when you can rely on this technology...

 

The information that can be read about:

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=364993#p364993

 

To my knowledge the Maverick was always an option but I don't recall exactly if that was true in early 80s. In Europe we didn't do Maverick at TJ nor did we teach it in FTU when I was there 86-89, but I did lots of Maverick at Homestead in Blk 15 jets from 1991 on. We trained with A, B, D, and G models and I shot a live B and D from the Blk 15s and a G-model from a Blk 32. The A-model was useless and dangerous as you needed to get closer to get a lock on and shoot than you did dropping dumb bombs and often you had to reattack to get lock on. Sometimes you couldn't (go all that way, face all those threats, and come away empty handed?). The B-model was only slightly better. The D and G were great and wish I had seen the H. Never flew with the Laser Mavs but I know they have been used in Afghanistan.

 

 

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=365176#p365176

 

Remember, the AGM-65A/B was an anti-tank weapon. It was useless against bridge abutments or ships or aircraft shelters. Its sole advantage over a MK-82 was the greater likelihood of actually hitting a tank. Now think about what the prevailing weather would have been in Central Europe or Korea during a major tank invasion. The ceiling would have probably been around 2000' AGL, and the vis would have been less than 5 miles. Add in dense forests, tall buildings, dense urban areas, smoke, dust, haze, and rain. Now imagine trying to pick out a camouflaged tank operating in that environment. At 5 miles a tank is less than one mil size to the naked eye. The AGM-65A/B centroid tracker could not see a target that size, much less keep a lock during launch transients. You didn't want to waste your precious Maverick on a Red Army food truck serving borscht to Ivan, and you could not distinguish the many trucks from the few tanks at 5 miles. Realistically, the max range that you could acquire and lock up a tank was probably about 18,000' slant range, and min range was probably around 5,000' slant range.

When I shot my AGM-65B at Nellis in 1986, we were very familiar with the area, we had INS coordinates for the target tank column, the tanks were dark green against a bright yellow desert background, and the weather was CAVU, there was no smoke, and nobody was shooting at us. As I recall, I started trying to lock up my target (last tank in the column) at about 12,000' slant range, and drove in to almost minimum range before getting a solid lock at around 5,000' range. (The missile hit the tank.)

 

We can as well watch some training launches with unknown Mavericks on winter environment (so targets are cold) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsCa_Qhqt9w            and slant ranges ain't so impressive.

 

So why not make a new advanced link-16 version of the AGM-65? Likely because you can't find targets at those ranges where you would benefit from those missiles.

And you have already something better for longer ranges like cruise missiles or even glide bombs etc. So why to try to invent wheel again? Mavericks should be great at those < 4-5 nmi ranges but not much further.

 

And if following the above link maverick B and G variants comparison, their launches were 4 500 - 10 000 ft so 0.74-1.64 nmi (1.3 - 3 km).

Nothing like in DCS where we go to launch easily at 8-12 nmi (15-22 km).

 

So now think about the A-G radar GMT capability. If you have Mavericks that can be launched only somewhere between at 0.74 - 1.64 nmi, then where do you need the A-G radar long detection capability if you would need datalink to missile to get it further range and implement LOAL instead LOBL?

 

It looks like that DCS received just ultimate tool for Hornet to be able detect any moving vehicle inside 40 nmi (75 km) and just designate IR maverick from maximum theoretical range and just be done with it.

 

 

[twistking]

@Joni fair enough.

 

@Fri13 thanks for info. so, is it safe to say that mavericks are modelled too optimistically in dcs then? i have never seen this come up on the forums before...

Edited January 6, 2021 by twistking

[Bunny Clark]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

is it safe to say that mavericks are modelled too optimistically in dcs then?

On the whole, all FLIR rendering is a bit optimistic in DCS right now. That should, hopefully change whenever we get the new FLIR rendering system. 

 

But, most of the complaints about poor lock-on performance come from the A and B Mavericks, which used much more rudimentary seeker system and had a fixed FOV. The D and subsequent versions are significantly better. 

[Fri13]

14 hours ago, twistking said:

@Joni fair enough.

 

@Fri13 thanks for info. so, is it safe to say that mavericks are modelled too optimistically in dcs then? i have never seen this come up on the forums before...

 

 

Yes. It can be said so. And it was brought up in the thread I posted when Viggen came out. It is mainly because limitation in the graphics engine and FLIR system. We should have far more clutter on the ground to conceal ground vehicles so it would be more challenging to lock with EO systems. This means that you would as well need to consider the sun angle so you can get the target shadow for your side to maximize the contrast, as attacking from the sun direction minimize the shadow and contrast is low.

  FLIR is another problem, where vehicles are all hot all over, instead just their heated parts. And then they have very distinct thermal trail currently while they should be mostly very faint and challenging to find from the terrain if you don't know where to look. As now you just point FLIR at the general direction and you see all there as dots.

Hopefully new FLIR system would fix that.

And our FLIR and EO systems are way too high resolution, AFAIK it is the 1024 px as setting for displays/mirrors. We should have far lower resolution for all the systems based to their proper values. And then when you digitally zoom in, it should start get mushy in FLIR.

 

But those are technical limitations that just requires game engine, maps etc developed further. And it should make it possible to get those known limitations for the range, locking, launch with controlled motion etc.

 

[BIGNEWY]

Please keep to the topic title, Question about the functionality of the GMT radar mode

 

we are getting off topic here

[Fri13]

On 1/7/2021 at 2:57 AM, Bunny Clark said:

But, most of the complaints about poor lock-on performance come from the A and B Mavericks, which used much more rudimentary seeker system and had a fixed FOV. The D and subsequent versions are significantly better. 

 

If A acquires lock at the 1-1.5 km, then sure does a B or D be much better if you get lock at 1.5-3 km range.

 

The A is the base model. It had very short lock range and challenge to get on small details locked.

The B is like the A but with 2x magnification to get lock at 2x longer range or 2x smaller detail.

The D is like the B but with the IR seeker, IR capability made capable engage at night or low visibility (mist etc) if there is enough contrast to separate heated object from background.

The E is only laser maverick without capability for self-dazing.

The E2/L upgrade added capability for self-lazing.

The F is like the D/G, but with different warhead (as well likely target below waterline for ships as it is for Navy).

The G is like the D, but with the capability lock on large targets (large ships and buildings).

 

The K is based to D

The H based to B model

Both takes EO instead FLIR, that adds capability engage targets on hot environments like deserts (Nevada, Gulf, Syria maps) where you can acquire lock on target better than with IR as you don't have the thermal clutter to deny lock or cause false lock.

So naturally a large ship at sea is easier to be targeted than a small vehicle on the desert/forest environment with major heat clutter all over them. So if one can do it from 12 nmi, it doesn't mean other can do it as well from 12 nmi.

 

The Maverick should be seriously limited by the lock range if you don't get a strong contrast to lock on. FLIR doesn't help there much in various environments and weathers. And if you have targets that try to hide (military units) then they all become almost impossible to be locked on as you can't see them.

Your A-G radar can't find them, not even with GMTI as their natural camouflage or camouflage nets absorb the radar energy so you can't get a doppler shift. You don't get the recognition library tell what is the target even on millimeter wave band radars. And same way FLIR gets blank as they can't see them.

And that leaves to EO seekers so you could acquire a lock via old methods to get a nicer higher resolution and high contrast target.

It is easy to lock on something in flat desert with sun casting shadow or snowfield with dark vehicle middle of it. But when units try to hide as their basic training already covers, optical tracking becomes very challenging.

 

What does the A-G moving target radar help in the maverick limited seeker lock range? Not so much, but if you know the position where to point your targeting pod it will help a lot when intelligence can't keep up with moving forces. So you know for where to start looking where you detect some movement. But to get the Maverick locked on a A-G radar target from far distance, it doesn't help that radar would be more capable as the maverick seeker is still the limiting factor to acquire a lock at given target size. So large ship / building is totally different thing from even a MBT size target. So if you can lock on a 100-300 meters long ship from 12 nmi, then to lock on 7 meters long T-72 hull, with likely just 1-2 meter IR signature means you are down to < 3 km (1.6 nmi).

 

If we look older radar GMT capability, it is fairly shady one, closer to F-5 level of radar than anything else.

 

https://youtu.be/Aq5HXTGUHGI?t=439

 

You can see that the radar doesn't detect all the targets on each sweep but it will find that something is moving in those corresponding areas. So each target might pop at different times and you have limited time to see if there is something etc.

 

But is it in 2005 version that you get all moving targets visible up to 75 km and you can just lock with maverick on any of them regardless their movement etc?

That is fairly optimistic I would say.

 

If we look about more advanced radar functions than we have:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/sargmti-intro.html

 

 

It is easy to see that how radar in the DBS/EXP mode can detect the movement on open areas with large detectable objects.

What you see on the radar scope is the USMC training area just right of the reticle, and then at bottom part is a civilian RV park with some boats waving in the sea and some cars passing by on the road, if not simply just detecting waves as moving vehicles.

 

 

But what can be seen is that there is likely a military truck convoy or something in that flat open area and road next to it.

 

 

That is where I would see GMTI working better that you get the EXP2/EXP3 modes on the area to observe known location and then you get to see if there is something moving that you could put a TGP on. So close range detection and finding something. How capable it should be compared to 75 km range for detecting all moving targets there as was shown on Wags video? Much more.

 

Where I see some use is to detect a SAM site by its rotating radar when you are in SEAD missions, but then again why to even bother for that if you have a ARM with you? At least you can get with bombs to try take it out after finding it in small area.

 

Again, why to spend time trying to interpret something on the radar screen if you can just already have a TGP in that same area and see it by yourself that something is moving etc? Yes, clouds to block the targeting pod capabilities is a limitation (thank you for a new clouds/weather system to add that real challenge for targeting pods and making A-G radars more useful!).

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Fri13
Added the pictures of the publicly known capabilities.