Aircrafts' A-G fire control radar, correctly modeled?

[cns180784]

Hi i mentioned this in another thread but didnt get any proper answers. In the previous scenario i played which was Birmingham strikes you have 8 Tornado GR1's that all have ground search radars (which i think are FCRs but thats irrelevant to this thread) and i know that there are enemy ground targets at the city of Robertsport which need to be killed.

Up to now i had managed to recon ground targets with targeting pods or just visual recon cameras or FLIRs. I used a Tornado in Birmingham strikes and gave it a LGB bomb loadout which includes the TIALD 100 pod which consists of a 30nm range TV camera, FLIR camera and laser designator. Due to the weather in the scenario these laser guided bombs couldnt be used, but i had this one tornado given this loadout just to use the TIALD 100 pod for recon. Then i thought i'd try finding the contacts on the aircrafts' ground search radar and then have it fly at about 6,000 feet over those contacts to classify what they are with the TIALD pod (activated radar in sensors panel).
However no contacts came up and i know just from playing Falcon BMS and using the air to ground FCR on the F-16 (AN/APG-68) that they should appear on the FCR as dots (which appear brighter with more gain).

So if contacts dont appear in game with the A-G radars on aircraft, other than being able to target ground targets (with it being an FCR) how are they actually simulated? in one scenario i picked up radars on the ground (target acquisition radars for AAA) with RWR and not with their A-G radar.

[thewood1]

Not sure how it should work, but not sure you should use another game as a reference to reality. Might also want to put a save up.

[mikmykWS]

Yes and Yes please.

Mike

[cns180784]

A radar with surface search capability is used to find contacts on land or sea which can then be investigated by visual means, with Mk1 eyeball if need be but obviously better would be to use a TV camera or in night conditions, a FLIR camera. Check it out for yourself load up any scenario, command an aircraft that has a radar with surface search ability, and have its radar switched on and pointing so its searching over an area where you know where there are enemy or even friendly ground forces like in the Birmingham strikes scenario.
I have discovered for myself that no contacts come up just from that Birmingham strikes scen, and that i had to go down to below the cloud layer (under 10,000 feet) and fly within a few miles to find them, using the TIALD 100 pod- so it seems to me like surface search radars on aircraft in command are pretty much useless.

[thewood1]

So you aren't going to post a save, I take it.

[Pergite!]

The legacy radar on the Gr.1 should not be able to detect what you are looking for in the dense jungle/built up areas, so it's imo working as intended. Try to add a modern ISR bird with SAR and you will however get a clear picture of the ground situation.

As mentioned, a save would however be more helpful...

[thewood1]

Yeah, I just did some research online and through Osprey and early GR1 TFR and GRM didn't seem to have the capability of picking out infantry or even small AFVs. That seems to have been added in the GR4.

Tried a Typhoon GR.4 in the same scenario and its surface radar picked up that some type of units were there without an ID from 30 miles out at 10k meters.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Yeah, I just did some research online and through Osprey and early GR1 TFR and GRM didn't seem to have the capability of picking out infantry or even small AFVs. That seems to have been added in the GR4.

On another note, the more capable IR-recon suite on the Gr.1 stored its scan data on video tapes so that data would be availabe until it had been analysed back at base. The same is basically true for almost every recon equipped airframe even today. Making this realistic would probably need to be handcrafted for each scenario through some kind of extendet LUA scripting (mose likely in the sam way as one could handle the sub-coms "issue").

[thewood1]

Yeah, you could set up a recon side that switched sides when the plane came back to the airbase. I think the contacts are retained on the switch. Its actually not a complicated script and would be almost the same as the sub one.

[HaughtKarl]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Yeah, I just did some research online and through Osprey and early GR1 TFR and GRM didn't seem to have the capability of picking out infantry or even small AFVs. That seems to have been added in the GR4.

Tried a Typhoon GR.4 in the same scenario and its surface radar picked up that some type of units were there without an ID from 30 miles out at 10k meters.

Pretty much this. I recall someone asking the same thing about this particular mission several months ago (tm.asp?m=3804903&mpage=1&key=�). It looks like the Tornado lacks the ability to pick out mobile ground targets with its radar unlike something like the Super Hornet (thank you Jane's F18) that has ground moving target mode for the pilot pick up mobile targets. You still have to get below the clouds to ID them but the radar alone tells you something is down there moving. I figured a dedicated ground attack aircraft like the Tornado would have that ability to pick up mobile targets by default.

Looking through the database neither the Tornado nor the F-111 can spot mobile targets with its radar but the A-6 Intruder can. I took a peek at the old Digital Integration Tornado manual which I know is far from a defnitive source for CMANO but the manual says it can find
targets of opportunity like vehicles and trains with the radar.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: cns180784
A radar with surface search capability is used to find contacts on land or sea which can then be investigated by visual means, with Mk1 eyeball if need be but obviously better would be to use a TV camera or in night conditions, a FLIR camera. Check it out for yourself load up any scenario, command an aircraft that has a radar with surface search ability, and have its radar switched on and pointing so its searching over an area where you know where there are enemy or even friendly ground forces like in the Birmingham strikes scenario.

Surface search != land search. Different, discrete abilities. Many older radars had no problem detecting ships at sea but could not pick out any ground targets at all. The clutter is orders of magnitude higher, the challenges are different, the signal processing and technological level necessary are different. (This is why e.g. J-STARS was a game-changer back in Desert Storm). Please read a book.

Not only we are modeling the ability of modern land search-capable radars to pick out mobile targets, we also take into account target movement (e.g. the faster a vehicle moves, the easier it is to pick out of the clutter) and sensor frequencies (higher frequency provides a sharper return and thus makes detection easier; this is part of why many modern ATGMs use MMW seekers).

I have discovered for myself that no contacts come up just from that Birmingham strikes scen, and that i had to go down to below the cloud layer (under 10,000 feet) and fly within a few miles to find them, using the TIALD 100 pod- so it seems to me like surface search radars on aircraft in command are pretty much useless.

It seems to me like someone is too quick to blame Command instead of understanding how things work.

[cns180784]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
Surface search != land search. Different, discrete abilities. Many older radars had no problem detecting ships at sea but could not pick out any ground targets at all. The clutter is orders of magnitude higher, the challenges are different, the signal processing and technological level necessary are different. (This is why e.g. J-STARS was a game-changer back in Desert Storm). Please read a book.

Not only we are modeling the ability of modern land search-capable radars to pick out mobile targets, we also take into account target movement (e.g. the faster a vehicle moves, the easier it is to pick out of the clutter) and sensor frequencies (higher frequency provides a sharper return and thus makes detection easier; this is part of why many modern ATGMs use MMW seekers).

It seems to me like someone is too quick to blame Command instead of understanding how things work.

Ok this and what some others have said has given me food for thought. If you're referring to the GR1's radar not being able to pick out ground moving targets then fair enough, but only some of the ground targets in the birmingham strikes scenario are actually moving- some which include two shilka platoons, an artillery battery of 105mm light guns and a battery of ssc-3 SSM launchers are stationary, as well as three inf companies.

If the GR1's radar doesnt have GMT capability then in the DB where it has abilities it shouldnt be able to provide speed information, but it clearly says it does in the DB entry.

[Dimitris]

It provides speed information for the targets that it is able to detect, ie. surface targets ie. ships.

To make this clearer, take a look at a bonafide land search-capable unit, the E-8A JSTARS: http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index. ... aft?ID=590

Do you see the APY-3 stats? "Surface Search, Land Search - Fixed Facility, Land Search - Mobile Unit".

Making sense now?

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: cns180784

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
Surface search != land search. Different, discrete abilities. Many older radars had no problem detecting ships at sea but could not pick out any ground targets at all. The clutter is orders of magnitude higher, the challenges are different, the signal processing and technological level necessary are different. (This is why e.g. J-STARS was a game-changer back in Desert Storm). Please read a book.

Not only we are modeling the ability of modern land search-capable radars to pick out mobile targets, we also take into account target movement (e.g. the faster a vehicle moves, the easier it is to pick out of the clutter) and sensor frequencies (higher frequency provides a sharper return and thus makes detection easier; this is part of why many modern ATGMs use MMW seekers).

It seems to me like someone is too quick to blame Command instead of understanding how things work.

Ok this and what some others have said has given me food for thought. If you're referring to the GR1's radar not being able to pick out ground moving targets then fair enough, but only some of the ground targets in the birmingham strikes scenario are actually moving- some which include two shilka platoons, an artillery battery of 105mm light guns and a battery of ssc-3 SSM launchers are stationary, as well as three inf companies.

If the GR1's radar doesnt have GMT capability then in the DB where it has abilities it shouldnt be able to provide speed information, but it clearly says it does in the DB entry.

As stated above, moving targets are easier to detect than stationary ones when dealing with ground clutter, not the opposite. You (and several other on this forum) should, as recommended above, pick up some books and read them before trying to argue that something is wrong with this simulation. Basing your understanding on how complex sensors and weapons "should" function solely from experience in video games is not particularly productive if you are trying to argue for a certain cause.



This picture is taken from an APG-76 radar with GMTI and SAR capability. The moving targets create a doppler-shift which in turn can be used to single out for example moving vehicles, presented as bright white spots. The SAR capability in turn creates the image of the surrounding terrain. Pictured are a convoy moving over a bridge at 37.8 NMI range and with 18 metre resolution. The GMT functionality has nothing to do with meassuring the speed of a target, its a way to distinguish them from the background. This radar was state of the art in the late 90´s.
This is NOT what the Gr.1 was able to produce.




The second picture is from an AN/APQ-169 radar, fitted in the F-111 for the attack role. The radar reached operational service in the middle 80´s and should be representative of what kind of information you would expect from the Gr.1. Its usable over water and otherwise flat terrain, but in the stated scenario its not much help.

[cns180784]

I see interesting, thanks.

[HaughtKarl]

Well exc-u-u-u-se me mister man! I regret to inform you that not everyone here is a crusty grognard who dedicates countless hours isolated from the rest humanity to pours over tomes packed page to page with technical minutia that only a grumpy wargamer would find interesting. I'm a filthy casual player who has a passing interest in things military related and my knowledge base stems from playing those "video games" made by the greats like Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte, Dynamix, Jane's and others, who made deep but fun simulations tailored for civilian consumption. I wouldn't call it fair to label those as simple video games, especially later titles that became more and more complex as PCs became more powerful. Have you seen the manual to Falcon 4.0? Calling that a video game is akin to referring to CMANO as just another real time strategy game like Starcraft.

If Warfaresims doesn't want uneducated plebs playing their games *ahem* sims, then maybe they should pull CMNAO off of Steam and market it solely to industry insiders with TOP SECRET clearances and sell it for $7,999.

[thewood1]

i think if you re-read the original post...you'll see he didn't start out with very good attitude.

There are a lot of ways to ask a question without sounding like a dink. A number of people have gotten so used to behaving very badly on other forums, they are shocked when called out for not showing a little respect. They're either trying to hide that they don't know what they are talking about or just trolling.

This is a very difficult simulation to learn and coming in trying sound like you know more than the devs right off the bat isn't very smart. Especially if your only point of reference is a game that doesn't even simulate the avionics you're talking about. Its been mentioned before...read the manual, read the FAQ, use search, try something in-game, watch the tutotials, etc. If you come in and ask questions and don't make effort to teach yourself and learn...you'll get some pushback. Especially if you get caught lying about it.

[thewood1]

btw, falcon does a good job simulating the F-16. But the avionics on many other planes are fairly simplistic or just plain wrong from having to be shoehorned into the F-16 model.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: HaughtKarl

Well exc-u-u-u-se me mister man! I regret to inform you that not everyone here is a crusty grognard who dedicates countless hours isolated from the rest humanity to pours over tomes packed page to page with technical minutia that only a grumpy wargamer would find interesting. I'm a filthy casual player who has a passing interest in things military related and my knowledge base stems from playing those "video games" made by the greats like Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte, Dynamix, Jane's and others, who made deep but fun simulations tailored for civilian consumption. I wouldn't call it fair to label those as simple video games, especially later titles that became more and more complex as PCs became more powerful. Have you seen the manual to Falcon 4.0? Calling that a video game is akin to referring to CMANO as just another real time strategy game like Starcraft.

If Warfaresims doesn't want uneducated plebs playing their games *ahem* sims, then maybe they should pull CMNAO off of Steam and market it solely to industry insiders with TOP SECRET clearances and sell it for $7,999.

I am also a casual player. I have not plowed through tomes of anything, but still been able to pick up the basics over the years, by profession and general intrest. I started out in Gunship on the C64 and encountered Falcon for the first time on the Atari ST, and am well versed in the versions from that up to and including BMS. A general intrest have given me the understanding and a common sense that it's often ill advisable to come into a forum and blast a game for innacuracies based solely on how another game handles things, instead of basing your arguments and statements on IRL facts. A more humble approach is often better if you expect anykind of constructive help. It's exactly the same way over at the DCS forum, where people with pure gaming experience try to argue against posts made by people with actual experience with particular aircrafts. My recommendation stands, at least read up on a subject before one with negative in constructive posts try to slam someone for making a faulty sim. Where instead it's ones own understanding that is lacking.

If my approach of sharing information and advice however is threatening or elitist then I will certainly stop. I enjoy Command enough on its own, with no need to contribute to the community.

[Dimitris]

Alright, first of all everyone take a breath.

HaughtKarl: Nobody disrespects the great sim titles that you refer to. In fact the CMANO devs cut their teeth on most of them (and going back in time, all the way to F-15SE and F-19) and they provided a great deal of inspiration for what we have been doing with Command (the emphasis on air-ops is far from coincidental).

That said, it is true that impressions obtained from any of these sim titles must be carefully cross-referenced with real-world information before they are considered as "fact" and then used to question the validity of another sim product. Quick example: Flanker 1.x (yeah I was one of the "stutterites"...), an incredibly realistic sim for its time, would have you believe that the baseline Su-27S/SK has a radar capable of producing a crisp top-down view of targets in A-G mode. Let me save you the suspense: Not even close.

This, in itself, is a minor and easily forgivable error. We quite regularly have questions similar to this. In this case however, the OP compounded it with 2 big no-nos:

1) Failing to provide a save file even though it was repeatedly requested from him (in fact it's one of our key guidelines for effective support), thus wasting everyone's time. Save files speak a million words.

2) Assuming by default that there is a problem with the game and making a grand sweeping statement instead of considering the possibility that his information/understanding on the subject is flawed ("so it seems to me like surface search radars on aircraft in command are pretty much useless"). If you don't understand why this is a serious transgression, wait until you're a father and someone bullies your kid in front of you.

And still after these serious mistakes a number of community members still devoted time to patiently explain to him why his impression was wrong.

So, this has nothing to do with elitism. It's about polite, respectful, open-minded attitude, and helping others help you.

Thank you for your understanding.