Radar navigation was part of my job as an RF-4C WSO from 1978 - 89. Night, all weather, when you have to drive to a point on radar, it's all about good DR and precise timing to match map to scope. Our best tool was tilt and gain, and knowing where you are. Block RF's with the ARN 101 avionics package allowed the scope to display crosshairs of any LatLong you plug in. It seemed a little like cheating at the time, but it was only as good as the INS because you still had the same ole dish with just a new digital back end. The picture changes fast irl, especially at speed, and you might only get one or two sweeps, so better be ready and know where to look. It also interfaced with our external optical sensors for buddy lasing. Well done video on a paused radar picture, now go do it at night at low level, with mission pressure and shit wx... I very much liked this video, it brought back many memories, thanks. c/s Flogger
A German F-104 pilot over the Baltic sea used his AG radar to navigate back home. He mistook the island Ruegen (was GDR territory back then) for a Danish island. Once he realized the mistake he turned North immediately to avoid being intercepted by Russian / GDR interceptors. INS in the F-104G was pretty good provided the flight was smooth. If some ACM was done the INS had a huge error and could tell you not much more than "you are in Europe, most probably".
Re not seeing the runway on the radar: IIRC Sea Harrier Pilots had the same issue during the Falklands war. They used offset points. Same was done with even more earlier Cold War aircraft. E.g. F-104G could use already offset points: locking on a known feature (e.g. the easily visible bridge in your video) would allow to attack "invisible" targets (provide there was a previous recce done). In a realistic cold war scenario pilots would have known that there is an airfield close to the bridge, and they would use the bridge and various expansion modes to get a better picture of the area of interest. edit: the F-104 allowed to lock on an offset point (with known vector to the intended target) and the HUD symbology would act as if the real target point would have been locked. Quite advanced for its time.
You get better resolution at a higher offset angle. Best results at the edge of the radar cone. this is due how to SAR works. You get horizontally smeared out blobs further towards the center, to the point of being garbage down the centerline (where they cut out the image) Contacts become more defined and actual blobs near to the edge of the cone. Best detection would be 90° to the motion of the aircraft, but the radar can't turn that far over. Dedicated ground mapping equipment on satelites or planes like the E-8 have the radar facing to the side relative to the motion of the dish. Also how would you find a runway on A/G radar on the hornet if the radar wasn't picking it up very well? Well you can just make a steerpoint on it and zoom in on that. Also you wouldn't just fly around willy nilly looking for targets on the air to ground radar. If your mission was to blow up parked aircraft then of course you would know where to look.
Dear Mr. Cap, the bigger blip on the smaller ship is no necessarily a bug. The size of the blip depends on how good the target reflects radar. Size does not automatically mean better reflection. But this are small details in a very good and interesting video. Well done :)
DBS has maximum resolution at 45 degrees off nose at least with F-16. That's just because how it works. Barely off the nose or approaching 90 the technique approaches useless.
German only: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_Beam_Sharpening From what I understood: The DBS process can improve the angel resolution. Radar can differentiate 2 neighboring points if the two points have a large enough difference of their doppler shift. Right in front of the aircraft the doppler shift difference of two points (e.g. on radial 1.0 and radial 1.1) is not large enough. But the doppler shift difference of points on the 45.0 and 45.1 radials is quite large. Differences near 90 degree (if the radar could look that far to the site) would be small again. Therefore the method works best in that area around the 45 degree radials.
I would say you would know where a target was supposed to be from your mission briefing. So yeah, you cannot see it by just scanning at max range, but if you know where it SHOULD be, you can walk it in with your radar zoom levels. Then you use your experience to determine which slightly different colored blob is your target.
@@grimreapers There's only 2 methods of approach. You're either operating on the mindset of targets of opportunity (searching blindly), or prebriefed from prior recon. RC's objection to EXP3 implies TOO, but operating from a point of reference implies the other. At the very least you should know what patch of land you're looking at just comparing from a basic map of the theater, and thus should be expecting to see an airfield if nothing else. The only reason you'd be staying at range (without a briefing) is a nail/mudspike which would also be cause to look harder.
Yeah, if you ever get a chance to look at Bill Gunston's book on the F/A-18 from the 1980s and another one called Modern Fighting Aircraft: F/A-18 by Mike Spick (that's his real name), they show the capabilities of the AN/APG-65 radar and how clearly it could show a runway. Unclear on the distance, but it was pretty amazing the sharpness and detail these newer designs could achieve. Currently collecting all those books from that era on all the aircraft that I can. I love what they say about things and predictions in their writings from 1982-1985. What they knew and what they predicted.
They should remake the video, but use the radar properly. For instance in the hornet if you have the target at a bit more of an angle(50 degrees), as well as a good amount of altitude(20 000+ feet) it can give a much sharper image. I have heard its similar with the f16 and jf17 although the parameters might be a bit different there. Same mission, same parameters, except for the azimuth and maby the altitude. By the way, the hornet has a dedicated sea mode
Radar is just one tool in the toolbox... Right now your radar is your only tool (hamer), so every target is a nail.. But when taken in total with other sensors, FLIR, RWR, Mk1 Eyeball , intelligence, Data Link, and the human brain that is how the radar should be judged. A single aircraft would not be sent out to take out a fleet , bridge, several factories some tanks, SAM site and a pokadotted cow in rubber boots, ( Thatvwould be a very cool mission BTW! Please!!!!!!!!) Everything is a series of compromises especially in military aviation... and each aircraft is the pinical of political will and science restrained by feasible economics... Love this stuff guys! Keep up the great work.. (USN AQ2 IWT A7-E. F/A-18C. Marauders)
@@grimreapers It works because of math. It's modeled in the game where if you point the plane further away from the target, the better your resolution in EXP mode. You should try different offsets: 15, 25, 35, etc. (All the way out to gimbal limits) and compare the resolution.
@@grimreapers Slices of blips in sideways become integral from multidirectional observations, in front of you they stay just the same slices, pic: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Spotlight_Imaging_Mode.jpg
An F-111 would be ridiculously awesome. Some see it as a worse F-15E, but I see it as the best bomber for DCS. It’s only a two-seater, which is far better for DCS than a four of five crew aircraft. It’s bombload is plenty big enough. It’s got a bunch of old-school tech and weapon delivery modes. It’s perfect. The one problem is that the F-111 was so incredibly complicated that an AI bombardier/navigator would not work whatsoever. You would need two humans at all times. It is far too complicated for an AI to work.
@@grimreapers Angle relative to the target. Synthetic Aperture Radar works best at an angle. Let's say Batumi is at 90 degrees heading from the aircraft, as you had set them up. In order to have a good picture you should have a heading of either 45 or 135 degrees. It would be 45 degrees relative to the target. Even better, if you start scanning at 30 degrees relative to the target, the radar would start scanning, and as you move along, without changing heading, the relative position to the target will naturally increase, up to 60 degrees, which is the gimbal limit of the radar. The bottom line is: the greater the angle relative to target the better, and as you move the more angles will the radar have, thus forming a better image. I understand why you did the way you did, because fiddling around a radar and talking at the same time is very complicated.
ships.... okay runway.... okay bridge.... okay I partially agree on the factories, as they are all big, stationary targets. But all the other ground objects..... Unless they are being lased from the ground, would you REALLY drop a bomb on these white rectangular blips which could literally be anything?
Imagine this: in Vietnam they did exactly that. Low Level, at night, bad weather, and being guided by radar blips. Of course, they would have a rough idea of the target area, but to fine tune the target they would use the ground radar. There is a not so realistic but classic movie called The Flight of the Intruder, where the Bomber/Navigator is heads down on a scope trying to find the target, a bridge, at night. He finds it, but they end up bombing a lot of other things along with it. Precision strike was not so precise using radar only.
Is it possible in the Hornet or Viper to make a "SPI" from a cursor position on the SA page? E.g. a known SAM threat is marked on the SA and the only way I found was to use e.g. AG radar, hit lock, watch where the AG radar marker appears on the SA page, and try to move the marker closer by unlocking / locking. But I think there should be a way to grab coordinates from the SA page, shouldn't it?
Guys, great job! I could see may experts and real WSO in the comment!! It’d be nice to have then live to help us understand the radar and all the tricks to make it better!!! Thanks
Cap love the video, why not have Katana (I think I spell her name right) may a mission with you as a FAC in an F-16, then F/A-18, then JF-17 to spot targets for a laser drop on all these target in a mission. Using bad weather (90% to 100%) cloud cover. Have red air response three minutes after the first bomb hit.
Please can you do a test without active pause, picking out targets from friendlies using RC's direction from a Combined Arms vehicle? Things like picking out the house the insurgents are in, not next door, or telling RC's MBT from the enemy's. I would appreciate picking up some tips on practical target acquisition, especially where the pilot has no prior knowledge of targets. Which aircraft excel in that situation, and how far away can you be? It would be tough and entertaining, but helpful to those of us who make a bigger pig's ear out of it than you will!
Ground mapping of F18's of one of the Allies in Operation Desert Storm worked like rubbish and they still had to go to war . The Nimrods look down radar locked cars on the M1 as missiles ,great yes ? Be Blessed All.
Just listened to an Aircrew Interview podcast with a former F18 pilot and he said the ground radar gave you a "..perfect 3D image of the ground." Not sure how perfect, but in DCS, it is almost useless.
It was the F18A thst the Aussies flew/fly. They did get upgraded avionics to the C model. This guy is retired now. You would think that the Hornet would be at least on par if not better than the Viper. I my have confused the interview with the latest Omegatau interview about the F18, specifically the second half.
Its always annoyed me that the radar and target pods in the hornet display in green like an old 1970s computer screen when the MFDs are clearly full color displays in the aircraft we have in game. I prefer the black and white of the viper radar displays
@@reillybrangan2182 except the F-16 and F/A-18 variants we have in game are mid to late 90s tech when they rolled off the line and upgraded into the mid 2000s
@@Knightfang1 Whats your point? The F/A-18C, literally in its most modern iterrations in existence today, still uses tri-colour cathode ray tube displays, bar the AMPCD. There is no question or debate about this. the F-16 Blk 50/52 has modern digital full colour displays, the F/A-18C (all lots) does not. ruclips.net/video/AcXiXZePHQ4/видео.html This is a video of modern Spanish Air Force F/A-18Cs in 2020, one the most upgraded F/A-18C fleets. As you can very clearly see, their left and right MFDs are still tri-colour CRTs. Even the first block 1 SuperHornets still had cathode ray-tube displays for the two MFDs.
@@grimreapers my theory is that the mission of the A-10 has it at relatively low heights…so ground clutter etc would be a major issue. Plus with the weight already carried in the gun, ammo, and other infrastructure…there probably isn’t much room on the engine power curves.
@@grimreapers The A-10 was conceived as a replacement for the A-1 Skyraider and was intended for shooting up trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail. It was simple and cheap and its mission didn't need any of the fancy toys that more sophisticated strike aircraft were equipped with. I'd be surprised if there was much thought during its design process about it carrying PGMs or flying missions where ground mapping radar and targeting pods would be useful.
You have to have the same criteria for each radar, not change the criteria on each test. Lol the F-18 fans are going to lay into you ;) lol's RC: "... I don't know..." Cap: " I don't know, I don't know" entertaining as always, cheers.
Test is flawed. Aircraft should be flying not in active pause.. you would probably get a higher definition with a moving aircraft loitering in a pattern.
You have to redo the video for 2022, and work better with the Viggen's radar, you are forced to play with both mod LIN y LOG and use bright/ contrast a lot to see clearer the contacts
F-16 vs. F/A-18? Hornet wins. Hands down! The AN/APG-73 is a noticeably more capable radar than the AN/APG-68(V)5. The AN/APG-68(V)9 has the addition of SAR mapping, however...
From the setup I see already you guys are not even doing this properly, If you want the most clarity with the Pulse doppler modes you need to offset yourself roughly 45 - 50 degrees for the best picture. EDIT: After watching the full video ... I can only say what a horrible test ... this video is pointless.
I am not a radar expert, can you explain why a static object being scanned from an offset would be clearer than straight on? None of the ground is moving so it is always going to be reflecting the same energy back from all ground objects and the ground.
@@Power5 I'm Assuming it has something to do with either the radar storing a previous image and then adding more detail the more passes it has over it. Or its because you see more definition as the radar sweeps over it at an angle, because if its straight on then you'd get a fat radar shadow behind it would be the same as looking at a building straight on. You wouldn't know how far back it goes or see any other details that you'd miss. Or both.
@@Power5 Hornets, vipers, JF-17 use DBS and SAR to get more detailed image. From this point i will use hornet radar as example, just because its most complicated radar in DCS. MAP is just simple radar scan mode, its work in all direction and not lose resolution at all in cost of smallest resolution from all other modes. EXP1 and EXP2 is DBS (dopler beam sharpening), this mode dont work at all in sector +-5 deg from aircraft nose, and resolution will be higher the closer radar angle to 90 deg. EXP3 is SAR (sysntetic apherture) mode, limitation is same (+-5 deg blind spot, best resolution - 90 deg). So, why radar lose resolution? Because SAR mode for example build one image using multiple scans, and then merge them to create higher resolution image, BUT, it must be scans preformed from DIFERENT points in space. Problem is.. If you move anthenna TOWARDS object that you want to scan, its actualy dont give you any new info, its just wasted scans, but if you move SIDEWAYS (or UP, its dosent matter to radar, but plane cant climb as fast as it can move horizontally) - its give you new info. You can imagine it next way - you want make photo of complicated object, if you make 4 photost when moving camera towards object you dont recieve any new info by looking at all 4 photos at the same time, its all has same perspective. But if you make 4 photos when you move camera around object, you will see many new details by looking at all this photos. Its very simple example, radar use compleatly diferent principle, but it allow imagine how it works without complex physics laws.
@@Power5 Doppler azimuth sharpening uses the relationship between angle-off and Doppler shift which has it's maximum rate of change at 45 degrees off. Basically the "Doppler color" of a return should be associated with a certain angle. If a return is a certain color then it should be a certain angle and the radar nudges those pixels around to refine the result in angle (not range). This has the effect of blurring moving targets because they aren't moving (relative) like a stationary object would and so they get nudged farther away from their true position. DBS is not SAR in the sense that DBS works on a single snapshot. It doesn't require multiple scans to compare but it does require assumed relative motion.
@@frederf3227 Makes sense, except I think the derivative of the doppler shift w.r.t. the angle off the nose should be increasing all the way to 90 degrees not 45. This is only accounting for the basic geometry, not saying there aren't other factors.
Radar navigation was part of my job as an RF-4C WSO from 1978 - 89. Night, all weather, when you have to drive to a point on radar, it's all about good DR and precise timing to match map to scope. Our best tool was tilt and gain, and knowing where you are. Block RF's with the ARN 101 avionics package allowed the scope to display crosshairs of any LatLong you plug in. It seemed a little like cheating at the time, but it was only as good as the INS because you still had the same ole dish with just a new digital back end. The picture changes fast irl, especially at speed, and you might only get one or two sweeps, so better be ready and know where to look. It also interfaced with our external optical sensors for buddy lasing. Well done video on a paused radar picture, now go do it at night at low level, with mission pressure and shit wx... I very much liked this video, it brought back many memories, thanks. c/s Flogger
Thanks!!
A German F-104 pilot over the Baltic sea used his AG radar to navigate back home. He mistook the island Ruegen (was GDR territory back then) for a Danish island. Once he realized the mistake he turned North immediately to avoid being intercepted by Russian / GDR interceptors.
INS in the F-104G was pretty good provided the flight was smooth. If some ACM was done the INS had a huge error and could tell you not much more than "you are in Europe, most probably".
Re not seeing the runway on the radar: IIRC Sea Harrier Pilots had the same issue during the Falklands war. They used offset points.
Same was done with even more earlier Cold War aircraft. E.g. F-104G could use already offset points: locking on a known feature (e.g. the easily visible bridge in your video) would allow to attack "invisible" targets (provide there was a previous recce done). In a realistic cold war scenario pilots would have known that there is an airfield close to the bridge, and they would use the bridge and various expansion modes to get a better picture of the area of interest.
edit: the F-104 allowed to lock on an offset point (with known vector to the intended target) and the HUD symbology would act as if the real target point would have been locked. Quite advanced for its time.
As a WW2 flight simmer watching these radar screens is like watching a archeologist decipher ancient hieroglyphics.
You get better resolution at a higher offset angle. Best results at the edge of the radar cone. this is due how to SAR works. You get horizontally smeared out blobs further towards the center, to the point of being garbage down the centerline (where they cut out the image) Contacts become more defined and actual blobs near to the edge of the cone. Best detection would be 90° to the motion of the aircraft, but the radar can't turn that far over. Dedicated ground mapping equipment on satelites or planes like the E-8 have the radar facing to the side relative to the motion of the dish.
Also how would you find a runway on A/G radar on the hornet if the radar wasn't picking it up very well? Well you can just make a steerpoint on it and zoom in on that. Also you wouldn't just fly around willy nilly looking for targets on the air to ground radar. If your mission was to blow up parked aircraft then of course you would know where to look.
thx!
Dear Mr. Cap, the bigger blip on the smaller ship is no necessarily a bug. The size of the blip depends on how good the target reflects radar. Size does not automatically mean better reflection. But this are small details in a very good and interesting video. Well done :)
thx
I'm not sure how it is with the f18 but the Jeff gets alot sharper and crisper radar sharpening the more offbore the target is
DBS has maximum resolution at 45 degrees off nose at least with F-16. That's just because how it works. Barely off the nose or approaching 90 the technique approaches useless.
I wonder if it has a synthetic aperture feature. I think that works better the closer the target is to the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions.
German only: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_Beam_Sharpening
From what I understood: The DBS process can improve the angel resolution. Radar can differentiate 2 neighboring points if the two points have a large enough difference of their doppler shift. Right in front of the aircraft the doppler shift difference of two points (e.g. on radial 1.0 and radial 1.1) is not large enough. But the doppler shift difference of points on the 45.0 and 45.1 radials is quite large. Differences near 90 degree (if the radar could look that far to the site) would be small again. Therefore the method works best in that area around the 45 degree radials.
I think the 16 is best because of its EGM mode it is literally enhanced ground mapping and works very well.
I would say you would know where a target was supposed to be from your mission briefing. So yeah, you cannot see it by just scanning at max range, but if you know where it SHOULD be, you can walk it in with your radar zoom levels. Then you use your experience to determine which slightly different colored blob is your target.
yeh tough one to judge...
@@grimreapers There's only 2 methods of approach. You're either operating on the mindset of targets of opportunity (searching blindly), or prebriefed from prior recon. RC's objection to EXP3 implies TOO, but operating from a point of reference implies the other. At the very least you should know what patch of land you're looking at just comparing from a basic map of the theater, and thus should be expecting to see an airfield if nothing else. The only reason you'd be staying at range (without a briefing) is a nail/mudspike which would also be cause to look harder.
Yeah, if you ever get a chance to look at Bill Gunston's book on the F/A-18 from the 1980s and another one called Modern Fighting Aircraft: F/A-18 by Mike Spick (that's his real name), they show the capabilities of the AN/APG-65 radar and how clearly it could show a runway. Unclear on the distance, but it was pretty amazing the sharpness and detail these newer designs could achieve. Currently collecting all those books from that era on all the aircraft that I can. I love what they say about things and predictions in their writings from 1982-1985. What they knew and what they predicted.
They should remake the video, but use the radar properly. For instance in the hornet if you have the target at a bit more of an angle(50 degrees), as well as a good amount of altitude(20 000+ feet) it can give a much sharper image. I have heard its similar with the f16 and jf17 although the parameters might be a bit different there. Same mission, same parameters, except for the azimuth and maby the altitude.
By the way, the hornet has a dedicated sea mode
thx
Radar is just one tool in the toolbox... Right now your radar is your only tool (hamer), so every target is a nail.. But when taken in total with other sensors, FLIR, RWR, Mk1 Eyeball , intelligence, Data Link, and the human brain that is how the radar should be judged. A single aircraft would not be sent out to take out a fleet , bridge, several factories some tanks, SAM site and a pokadotted cow in rubber boots, ( Thatvwould be a very cool mission BTW! Please!!!!!!!!) Everything is a series of compromises especially in military aviation... and each aircraft is the pinical of political will and science restrained by feasible economics... Love this stuff guys! Keep up the great work.. (USN AQ2 IWT A7-E. F/A-18C. Marauders)
F-15E with offset mapping is amazing.
You need more offset to get a good image
How does this work? I was not aware??
@@grimreapers It works because of math. It's modeled in the game where if you point the plane further away from the target, the better your resolution in EXP mode.
You should try different offsets: 15, 25, 35, etc. (All the way out to gimbal limits) and compare the resolution.
@@grimreapers Slices of blips in sideways become integral from multidirectional observations, in front of you they stay just the same slices, pic: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Spotlight_Imaging_Mode.jpg
With ground radar working get the F111 in the sim. That’s what it was good at very low, fast, night time bombing
Tornado as well.
An F-111 would be ridiculously awesome.
Some see it as a worse F-15E, but I see it as the best bomber for DCS. It’s only a two-seater, which is far better for DCS than a four of five crew aircraft. It’s bombload is plenty big enough. It’s got a bunch of old-school tech and weapon delivery modes. It’s perfect. The one problem is that the F-111 was so incredibly complicated that an AI bombardier/navigator would not work whatsoever. You would need two humans at all times. It is far too complicated for an AI to work.
Cap, you really should have another crack at this but with a 45-50 offset as you will have better pic quality by design.
How do you mean? Angular offset? Plz msg in Discord.
Yes, this. Seen F-15E offset-mapping images and they are almost photographic.
@@grimreapers Angle relative to the target. Synthetic Aperture Radar works best at an angle. Let's say Batumi is at 90 degrees heading from the aircraft, as you had set them up. In order to have a good picture you should have a heading of either 45 or 135 degrees. It would be 45 degrees relative to the target. Even better, if you start scanning at 30 degrees relative to the target, the radar would start scanning, and as you move along, without changing heading, the relative position to the target will naturally increase, up to 60 degrees, which is the gimbal limit of the radar. The bottom line is: the greater the angle relative to target the better, and as you move the more angles will the radar have, thus forming a better image. I understand why you did the way you did, because fiddling around a radar and talking at the same time is very complicated.
ships.... okay
runway.... okay
bridge.... okay
I partially agree on the factories, as they are all big, stationary targets.
But all the other ground objects..... Unless they are being lased from the ground, would you REALLY drop a bomb on these white rectangular blips which could literally be anything?
I know. Tough decisions...
Imagine this: in Vietnam they did exactly that. Low Level, at night, bad weather, and being guided by radar blips. Of course, they would have a rough idea of the target area, but to fine tune the target they would use the ground radar. There is a not so realistic but classic movie called The Flight of the Intruder, where the Bomber/Navigator is heads down on a scope trying to find the target, a bridge, at night. He finds it, but they end up bombing a lot of other things along with it. Precision strike was not so precise using radar only.
Great info! Surprising too. Now, the Tomcat and the A10 :)
the a10 would score highly cos it has a cake to identify wedding partys
@@eamonnw Comment of the year, my friend! 😎
The Hawg has no radar, BUT... The Tomcat and Warthog are _by far_ the most realistic modules in DCS World.
Eyyyyyyyy, RC is back. I missed him
Is it possible in the Hornet or Viper to make a "SPI" from a cursor position on the SA page? E.g. a known SAM threat is marked on the SA and the only way I found was to use e.g. AG radar, hit lock, watch where the AG radar marker appears on the SA page, and try to move the marker closer by unlocking / locking. But I think there should be a way to grab coordinates from the SA page, shouldn't it?
Not yet I believe
Guys, great job!
I could see may experts and real WSO in the comment!!
It’d be nice to have then live to help us understand the radar and all the tricks to make it better!!!
Thanks
Cap love the video, why not have Katana (I think I spell her name right) may a mission with you as a FAC in an F-16, then F/A-18, then JF-17 to spot targets for a laser drop on all these target in a mission. Using bad weather (90% to 100%) cloud cover. Have red air response three minutes after the first bomb hit.
Cortana i believe maybe with a 'K' Kortana. But your idea is great, the Viggen has a system for that as well with the recon flight capability.
Good idea.
No A-4E Skyhawk?
Good to know that Viggen could do its primary job, find the Russian invasion fleet, and drop anti-ship missiles on them.
yup
*** Dr. CAP and Nurse RC reading my CAT-Scans " OK, lets play with the Gain ... Oh ,Speed Boat ! " :)
lol x
it is easy if you can compare it with f10 map, try finding something placed randomly near specific waypiont
Please can you do a test without active pause, picking out targets from friendlies using RC's direction from a Combined Arms vehicle? Things like picking out the house the insurgents are in, not next door, or telling RC's MBT from the enemy's. I would appreciate picking up some tips on practical target acquisition, especially where the pilot has no prior knowledge of targets. Which aircraft excel in that situation, and how far away can you be? It would be tough and entertaining, but helpful to those of us who make a bigger pig's ear out of it than you will!
Fixed here: ruclips.net/video/ySbiC12o27o/видео.html
Ground mapping of F18's of one of the Allies in Operation Desert Storm worked like rubbish and they still had to go to war . The Nimrods look down radar locked cars on the M1 as missiles ,great yes ? Be Blessed All.
can you compare a/a radar range for all aircrafts
I have done it but yes it needs updating. Will do.
Just listened to an Aircrew Interview podcast with a former F18 pilot and he said the ground radar gave you a "..perfect 3D image of the ground." Not sure how perfect, but in DCS, it is almost useless.
I doubt that even the most advanced radars aren’t perfect even tho I do believe it should be better in dcs than it is now
Was that Superhornet or legacy hornet?
Do we have any real pics that we can compare to game??
It was the F18A thst the Aussies flew/fly. They did get upgraded avionics to the C model. This guy is retired now. You would think that the Hornet would be at least on par if not better than the Viper. I my have confused the interview with the latest Omegatau interview about the F18, specifically the second half.
Its always annoyed me that the radar and target pods in the hornet display in green like an old 1970s computer screen when the MFDs are clearly full color displays in the aircraft we have in game. I prefer the black and white of the viper radar displays
The DDIs are not full-color. They're tricolor (green, red, yellow).
The AMPCD is full color though.
Its because they are old 1970s "computer" screens (cathode ray tubes). Exactly the same as the real aircraft, with the AMPCD being digital.
struggle with green also.
@@reillybrangan2182 except the F-16 and F/A-18 variants we have in game are mid to late 90s tech when they rolled off the line and upgraded into the mid 2000s
@@Knightfang1 Whats your point? The F/A-18C, literally in its most modern iterrations in existence today, still uses tri-colour cathode ray tube displays, bar the AMPCD. There is no question or debate about this. the F-16 Blk 50/52 has modern digital full colour displays, the F/A-18C (all lots) does not.
ruclips.net/video/AcXiXZePHQ4/видео.html
This is a video of modern Spanish Air Force F/A-18Cs in 2020, one the most upgraded F/A-18C fleets. As you can very clearly see, their left and right MFDs are still tri-colour CRTs. Even the first block 1 SuperHornets still had cathode ray-tube displays for the two MFDs.
Surprising that the a10c2 doesn’t have a ground mapping mode.
Doesn’t have a radar!
I wonder why they ddn't give it a small radar above the gun? Cost?
@@grimreapers my theory is that the mission of the A-10 has it at relatively low heights…so ground clutter etc would be a major issue.
Plus with the weight already carried in the gun, ammo, and other infrastructure…there probably isn’t much room on the engine power curves.
@@grimreapers The A-10 was conceived as a replacement for the A-1 Skyraider and was intended for shooting up trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail. It was simple and cheap and its mission didn't need any of the fancy toys that more sophisticated strike aircraft were equipped with. I'd be surprised if there was much thought during its design process about it carrying PGMs or flying missions where ground mapping radar and targeting pods would be useful.
@@grimreapers a10 was designed to be expendable in case of ww3 so no radar
Why is the carrier showing up as 2 blips on the f16 and f18 radars
It's actually picking up the planes on deck. If u go closer you se all planes :)
21:51
Gussy
You have to have the same criteria for each radar, not change the criteria on each test. Lol the F-18 fans are going to lay into you ;) lol's RC: "... I don't know..." Cap: " I don't know, I don't know" entertaining as always, cheers.
Cows, Cap! Cows! Not sheep... cows.
If you showed them more respect on a regular basis you would also be more aware of their presence.
^^ fair point
What if the cows were moving :P #GMR
ooOO interesting...
Test is flawed. Aircraft should be flying not in active pause.. you would probably get a higher definition with a moving aircraft loitering in a pattern.
While I agree the test is flawed and pointless the active pause will not change the quality of the image, the offset to the target will.
Active pause aircraft are moving. They just aren't changing position ;)
I did try without pause and got same image with FRZ mode as active pause.
You have to redo the video for 2022, and work better with the Viggen's radar, you are forced to play with both mod LIN y LOG and use bright/ contrast a lot to see clearer the contacts
With its APG 83 F-16 would still be on the top
F-15E: hold my beer
Improved video here at 55º Offset Angle: ruclips.net/video/ySbiC12o27o/видео.html
What about the mirage ground radar? XD
It has ground radar?!?!
@@grimreapers ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxqSyTcqiLoRqheAXC_p7jj5pyqolLsopZ depends on your definition of "ground radar"
F-16 vs. F/A-18? Hornet wins. Hands down! The AN/APG-73 is a noticeably more capable radar than the AN/APG-68(V)5. The AN/APG-68(V)9 has the addition of SAR mapping, however...
You wrong.... Radar AESA APG-83, they are the current radars in the F16 and they are better than the apg73!!!🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
@@maliburallye350 You mean the new SABR?
I didn't mention it because the comparison was between the 73 and the 68, not the new AESA systems.
@@DJones476 , the apg68 has been almost totally replaced by the apg83 in the f16, so it is the correct thing to compare the apg73 with the apg83!!!
@@maliburallye350 Jose... Did you just shit your pants? 💩🤢
@@DJones476 calm ogt....
y not mirage?
I'd be interested in this too. I can't get the mirage radar to track any ground targets (ships etc), which makes it more or less useless.
A video not sponsored by that shitty game raid shadow legends? Impossible
Add block go brrrrrr
F-15E: hehee boii
From the setup I see already you guys are not even doing this properly, If you want the most clarity with the Pulse doppler modes you need to offset yourself roughly 45 - 50 degrees for the best picture.
EDIT: After watching the full video ... I can only say what a horrible test ... this video is pointless.
I am not a radar expert, can you explain why a static object being scanned from an offset would be clearer than straight on? None of the ground is moving so it is always going to be reflecting the same energy back from all ground objects and the ground.
@@Power5 I'm Assuming it has something to do with either the radar storing a previous image and then adding more detail the more passes it has over it. Or its because you see more definition as the radar sweeps over it at an angle, because if its straight on then you'd get a fat radar shadow behind it would be the same as looking at a building straight on. You wouldn't know how far back it goes or see any other details that you'd miss. Or both.
@@Power5 Hornets, vipers, JF-17 use DBS and SAR to get more detailed image. From this point i will use hornet radar as example, just because its most complicated radar in DCS. MAP is just simple radar scan mode, its work in all direction and not lose resolution at all in cost of smallest resolution from all other modes. EXP1 and EXP2 is DBS (dopler beam sharpening), this mode dont work at all in sector +-5 deg from aircraft nose, and resolution will be higher the closer radar angle to 90 deg. EXP3 is SAR (sysntetic apherture) mode, limitation is same (+-5 deg blind spot, best resolution - 90 deg).
So, why radar lose resolution? Because SAR mode for example build one image using multiple scans, and then merge them to create higher resolution image, BUT, it must be scans preformed from DIFERENT points in space. Problem is.. If you move anthenna TOWARDS object that you want to scan, its actualy dont give you any new info, its just wasted scans, but if you move SIDEWAYS (or UP, its dosent matter to radar, but plane cant climb as fast as it can move horizontally) - its give you new info.
You can imagine it next way - you want make photo of complicated object, if you make 4 photost when moving camera towards object you dont recieve any new info by looking at all 4 photos at the same time, its all has same perspective. But if you make 4 photos when you move camera around object, you will see many new details by looking at all this photos. Its very simple example, radar use compleatly diferent principle, but it allow imagine how it works without complex physics laws.
@@Power5 Doppler azimuth sharpening uses the relationship between angle-off and Doppler shift which has it's maximum rate of change at 45 degrees off. Basically the "Doppler color" of a return should be associated with a certain angle. If a return is a certain color then it should be a certain angle and the radar nudges those pixels around to refine the result in angle (not range). This has the effect of blurring moving targets because they aren't moving (relative) like a stationary object would and so they get nudged farther away from their true position.
DBS is not SAR in the sense that DBS works on a single snapshot. It doesn't require multiple scans to compare but it does require assumed relative motion.
@@frederf3227 Makes sense, except I think the derivative of the doppler shift w.r.t. the angle off the nose should be increasing all the way to 90 degrees not 45. This is only accounting for the basic geometry, not saying there aren't other factors.
F16 screen is like iphone 4s lol
Ayo my first, first View
So impressive
Lol hornet bad
I like the F-16 more than the F-18, Cap
So do I. Much more Cap-friendly.