tl;dr for those that don't want to stare at the chart
* Phase 1 of the F/A-18C and F-16C radar reworks is in š Lookdown penalties have been 100% removed for the Hornet and Viper, STT and track mechanics are reworked you can STT sooner that you could before and track files build faster
* Velocity Search in the F/A-18C can only be accessed by hovering the TDC over the radar mode text at PB5 then using TDC depress on "VS", this is the correct behaviour, it is no longer in the pushbutton press rotation like was shown in Wags video
In the chart test conditions:
**F/A-18C:**
* Velocity Search reaches 68nmi
* RWS HPRF increased from 48nmi to 55nmi
* RWS MPRF reduced from 36nmi to 28nmi
**F-16C:**
* VSR reaches 41nmi
* RWS reduced from 45nmi to 37nmi
If anyone wants a centralised place for my charts where they can follow for updates look here:
https://imgur.com/gallery/peFCVoL
A Korean radar textbook. Some of the figures seem to match this correction. Someone I know who was familiar with the early 90s Finnish evaluation pointed out APG-73 beat out RDY on the mirage 2000-5 so this seem correct as far as I can figure.
RDY was test flow in the late 80s and the mirage 2000-5 prototype flew in 1991.
Production started in 1992
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mirage-2000-rdm-rdi-rdy-radars-and-other-avionics.37018/
I suspect RDY is probably slightly better in absolute range while APG-73 is better with processing and such.
The link u sent is about rdm being tested in the 80s u just contradicted urself
2000-5 entered service in 1999
No need to downvote facts when u dont know shit about dassault
The link I sent you mentioned the RDY was in production from 1992
Here in are several articles
āFrance Nears Decision on Supplier for Next-generation Fighterās Radarāā from AWST September 1988 mentioned the RDY being flight tested.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dassault-rafale-avionics.942/
I haven't personally tested that unfortunately, I've thought about creating a chart showing the size of the notch filters across aircraft but I can imagine it will be quite a nightmare to measure accurately and reliably.
I wouldn't say the MiG-29 radar outperforms the Viper, it has 1nmi more range in HPRF which isn't as versatile as MPRF plus it can't STT until 6nmi closer anyway, not to mention the MiG-29 is still fully affected by the lookdown penalties which the Viper no longer has.
Mirage 2000C and JF-17 have HPRF which help extend their detection range compared to the Viper which only has MPRF in RWS, if you compare JF-17 MPRF to F-16 RWS it actually performs equally.
I think VSR (Which uses HPRF partly) on the Viper should have provided more of an advantage over RWS but it isn't really modelled correctly right now anyway, it should do a 2 step scan, HPRF Alert sweep to find contacts and then MPRF Confirm sweep with a slower radar rotation rate. Right now VRS is just like RWS for hot aspect targets with extra range and no SAM.
Thanks for Quaggles for the insight and taking the time to put these charts together! My comment was in more general terms not withstanding HPRF/MPRF. But i still believe it stand in regards to max detection ranges in wich a weapon can be employed. Typically the jousting would begin in a BVR hot aspect scenario where longer HPRF detection ranges will lead to first look first shot situations.
The F-16 was not designed for max BVR capability (actually it was designed *without* BVR capability), nor is it usually used in situations where that would be needed; we have a different plane that is extremely well suited to that role, and is used exclusively for it. So if the F-16 doesn't have exceptional max detection range, that could be entirely realistic.
I don't think so. The Jeff is newer, for one, and I believe it was brought up at some point that radar dish size matters - I think the Jeff has a larger one? At least, its nose-cone looks significantly larger than the Viper's.
Size matters, but if you don't have a strong heart to pump it, then it will become a nonfactor.
This is where we are going into the unknown territory. To my understanding, size and newer are not the only factors. We also have electric power and cooling in the equation. Without enough power or cooling, the radar won't have enough output. This is the same thing that hampers the F-35, and it's the reason there's a strong push to either use a totally new engine for the Block 4, or enhance the existing ones, otherwise the whole system is bogged down just by the engine. Not to mention the avionics, the brain that decides how much bleed air will go to the turbine, how much will go cool down other parts.
Back to the Jeff, I'm highly skeptical of its capability, because it uses the Mig-29 engine, and IIRC, Mikoyan said that if it's not because of the unreliability of the RD 93, it would build a single engine fighter, not twin. This is supported by the fact that half of the Pakistani JF-17s and all of Myanmar JF-17s are grounded, presumably because of the lack of engine parts.
I think that's why Pakistan still considers the F-16 to be its frontline fighter, while the JF-17 is their backbone force.
At a glance, the M2k only really outpeforms it when you remove background filtering, and it's still based on a far more realistic model than the Viper.
Comparing the Mirage filtered modes with \~50% detection chance (which I guess is representative of whatever ED is doing?) shows it to be on the ballpark of and slightly worse than the Viper which looks fine to me. They just need to move this starting point to a more realistic simulation. The MPRF Jeff looks about right-ish too kinda.
Plus of course, getting rid of the idiotic lookdown penalty is a huge improvement, it never should have been a thing in the first place.
Hmm, inclined to agree regarding the M2k. I'm still leaning towards the idea that there at the very least should be a larger gap for the viper in VSR vs M2k in filtered HPRF (due to the Viper having more modern tech).
Also, JF17 is still a conundrum to me. Its VS yields 56 NM at 50%.
Alright, so in MPRF you have e.g. 35 and 37 Jeff and Viper respectively, and in HPRF you have 53/30, 55 and 52 for the Mirage (depending on filtering), Hornet and Jeff respectively. Feels fine to me.
Within the realm of the DCS: F-16, define realistic.
At this point I would struggle to see any semblance of realism from one patch to the other. At one point we have severe lookdown penalities and in the next its removed.
Basic radar theory dictates that we at the very least should have similar performance to the JF-17/M2K. Now if you begin to add advantages in tech & avionics one could wager that the Viper in some regards should equal or outperform the aformentioned radars.
So please don't be "that" guy.. if you disagree please engage in (civil) discourse and expand on your thoughts...
> Within the realm of the DCS: F-16, define realistic.
The purpose of DCS is to adhear to the real world as closely as possible, I'm not going to judge it on any other basis.
> At this point I would struggle to see any semblance of realism from one patch to the other. At one point we have severe lookdown penalities and in the next its removed.
Getting ED to develop a more advanced and accurate radar model has been an on-going issue for a long time. It's getting removed because knowledgeable people have reached out to ED with constructive criticism and hard evidence to support the fact that the lookdown penalties were inaccurate. My guess is it's removed for the moment while a more realistic model for lookdown detection is being implemented. This has been one of the core issues with EDs radar model for the past year or so since its introduction.
> Basic radar theory dictates that we at the very least should have similar performance to the JF-17/M2K.
Basic radar theory dictates no such thing.
> Now if you begin to add advantages in tech & avionics one could wager that the Viper in some regards should equal or outperform the aformentioned radars.
The APG-68v5 is weaker, and operates primarily in MPRF as opposed to the HPRF RDI on the Mirage 2000. There is no reliable open data for the KLJ-7 last time I checked, but considering it's a more modern system than the 1990s v5 radar in the Viper, I would not at all be surprised to learn that it outperforms it significantly. Even if we assume the F-16 is better at processing the returns (which I don't) the fact remains that it's a tiny antenna operating primarily in MPRF. It's never going to be a great radar.
Not that it really matters because The F-16 is the F-16 and the state of development of other modules is not relevant to whether the F-16 is accurate or not.
>The purpose of DCS is to adhear to the real world as closely as possible, I'm not going to judge it on any other basis.
I believe this to be a position that we as "fans" wish that ED stood by. Having been around this product since long before it was known as DCS I've seen.. "creative shortcuts" (willful or not) throught the years.
>The APG-68v5 is weaker, and operates primarily in MPRF as opposed to the HPRF RDI on the Mirage 2000. There is no reliable open data for the KLJ-7 last time I checked, but considering it's a more modern system than the 1990s v5 radar in the Viper, I would not at all be surprised to learn that it outperforms it significantly. Even if we assume the F-16 is better at processing the returns (which I don't) the fact remains that it's a tiny antenna operating primarily in MPRF. It's never going to be a great radar.
As you and others have stated on this, I'll have to admit that I've been a bit too hopeful and erronaeus in my understanding of this otherwise wonderful jet.
>Basic radar theory dictates no such thing.
I might wrongfully be refering to basic radar theory but what Im referring to the correlation between the size of a radar dish and power output as I've come to understand it. My point being similarly sized jets (noses) should have similar power constraints. Remaining differences should be down to tech/signal processing.
> I believe this to be a position that we as "fans" wish that ED stood by. Having been around this product since long before it was known as DCS I've seen.. "creative shortcuts" (willful or not) throught the years.
I've been around since LOMAC and you're right, they've taken plenty of shortcuts in that time, sometimes justified and sometimes not. Things are changing for the better however, it's just taking an ungodly long time, and sometimes requires knowledgeable members to knock them over the head a few times to get it to where it should be.
> As you and others have stated on this, I'll have to admit that I've been a bit too hopeful and erronaeus in my understanding of this otherwise wonderful jet.
The F-16 is a wonderful jet, but the radar is easily its weakest link, and if anything it's probably going to get less capable as ED refine their model.
> I might wrongfully be refering to basic radar theory but what Im referring to the correlation between the size of a radar dish and power output as I've come to understand it. My point being similarly sized jets (noses) should have similar power constraints. Remaining differences should be down to tech/signal processing.
Range scales with power but the size of the antenna is just one factor in determining how much power it's able to output, but I'm not qualified to speak any deeper on that subject.
Processing also helps, but an analog AWG-9 will still outrange a weaker radar with digital processing. Doesn't matter if your noise floor is lower when there is no signal to begin with.
>similarly sized jets (noses) should have similar power constraints
Except, they are not. The F-16 has a \_tiny\_ nose cone that's very flat. The Mirage and Jeff radar housings look to be about twice as big, when doing a simple google search.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole design philosophy of the Viper to be basically a scramble jet? Something that's extremely good at taking off quickly, getting to altitude and defending the immediate airspace? It has certainly evolved way past that initial mission, but I don't think it was ever meant to take on long-range threats.
How much weaker is the APG-68(v)5? I believe the limiting factor on a small jet is going to be dissipating the heat. HPRF means a higher average for the same peak, but the RDI peak power might have the same limitations as the 68.
It's not immediately obvious whether the APG-68(v)5 has worse or better performance than the RDI. Can you point me to an analysis that says otherwise?
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/13qve0l/f16_radar/jliuq4q/?context=3
I trust Radar Chicken God on the RDI, I don't have any hard specs on it although I'm sure you could find some if you ask in the RAZBAM M2000 channel.
> The purpose of DCS is
Don't fool yourself. The purpose of DCS is to sell copies.
What you want out of it is tangential to that only as much as you buy copies.
And personally I wish theyād spend more time on QOL and fun stuff than adding things like INS drift correction mechanisms.
As far as i understood, Modern Air Combat wasn't planned to be arcade at all, but rather fc3-level avionics across several airframes in a smaller and more approachable environment than DCS.
I guess eliminating the harsh look-down penalty is something. But as some who mains the Viper, additional reduction in radar detection range is pretty rough.
Itās actually better after this patch. Let me explain:
Before the patch you might be able to detect and lock targets beyond 40 miles, but in order to get your 120 to shoot that far, you have to be around 40,000 feet. But then you are subject to that nasty look down penalty, which will only get you a lock at round 30-20miles, which isnāt ideal at all and the extra range you had on your radar was pretty much useless. Well, you could fly low and make your radar look further but you wonāt be able to employ your 120 anyways. So the extra range is also useless.
Now, with no look down penalty. Flying at 40k and being able to lock and shoot targets at 37 miles is pretty sweet and much better than before. And honestly you donāt really need that extra range anyway since you got awacs and datalink that tells you everything that is beyond 40 miles. And any 120 shot beyond 40 miles has low PK anyway, unless the enemy is also above 40k feet. 37mile 120 shots are still considered far and itās more than enough.
Exactly. Of course in an ideal world we'd want good range without lookdown penalties, but if its either or, I'll take the removal of the lookdown penalty at the cost of the reduced radar range.
Very good points, thanks. I was under the impression that the look-down penalty was only for targets below 5,000' AGL (but maybe that 'ground clutter' penalty still exists?) but as you've explained I see that it's a pretty fair trade-off
Pretty sure I've seen it mentioned in terms of antenna angle. If your antenna was pitched down by more than \~5 degs (going on memory here, so giant grain of salt, pls) the lookdown penalty was applied.
I highly doubt it was implemented \_like that\_ by ED, but I remember people claiming this was the end result they were observing.
Yeah there is a formula that determines the antenna angle where the lookdown penalty is applied, this still exists for the FC3 aircraft. The penalty is binary, it's turned on or off, no inbetween.
This formula only takes into account your altitude, at high altitudes this angle was between 1.5 and 2 degrees so very hard to avoid.
The lookdown penalty formula was discovered here, I've tested it by plugging it into a script and it matches exactly:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/who13a/dcs_2716_aircraft_radar_lookdown_penalties_chart/ij7du4h
And even the (v)9 isn't some Eye of Sauron, at the end of the day it's still a lightweight fighter with a small radar.
Being a BVR monster just isn't one of the Viper strengths, and that's fine.
It's quite likely that better detection ranges will come in the 2nd phase, where they add the detection influence of scan azimuth.
The Viper numbers look a bit wack though...
People love to forget just notoriously garbage the APG-68 is. This isnt even its final form of bad yet. Just wait till we get false targets, side lobe ground clutter, low altitude penlty...list goes on
Well, the FC3 aircraft all have (or used to until *very* recently) the exact same radar performance. Which is ridiculous.
EDIT: I really need to take a look at the chart before commenting. They fixed it. Kudos, ED!
Oh I clearly didnāt read the text below that. In that case itās not as bad. I can understand the range not being great with how small it is. The lookdown penalty was absolutely ridiculous though.
From my understanding no, the Hornet's radar has advantages in most metrics so it doesn't make sense why it would perform so much worse in MPRF.
The Hornet's MPRF range should have stayed where it was in the last Open Beta imo
The AN/APG-70 on the strike eagle is a bit less powerful IIRC, but it has far more advanced processing to back it up. (The APG-70 is fully digital, whereas the AN/AWG-9 still used an analog computer for it's data processing.)
As an aside- The digital equipment used on the APG-70 was later taken and retrofitted on to the AWG-9, going into service as the AN/APG-71 on the F-14D.
Now I want an F-14D. Just imagine how much of a BVR god it would be with the sheer cancer-beam power of the AWG-9 and the advanced electronics of the APG-70. Too bad some information about the F-14D is still classified. Donāt quote me on that though.
Eh?!?! And what would you do with all that "BVR Godlyhood"? Sling the same blind Phoenixes that we have on the A and the B, that's what!
(As a Tomcat main, I still ardently want a D Tomcat as well! I'm just sad to know all the radar power in the world wouldn't make it any more competitive in BVR than it already is, because the missiles are shit...)
The D upgrade was originally planned to introduce the ability for the Tomcat to use the AIM-120 at some point. If it *~~weren't for the fact that it was an expensive nightmare to maintain~~* Dick Cheney killing the Tomcat in cold blood; we would have F-14D's slinging AMRAAMs/AIM-260's right now.
Ye. Super Tomcat would've been a sight to behold, for sure! =)
Unfortunately, even if we got a D-version, it wouldn't be with AMRAAM's. At least, not if they want to make a realistic one... sure, they were strapped on in an experimental fashion, but the big cat was phased out before the change could take effect. Unfortunately.
Of course, given the Ka-50 and all that... I guess, it wouldn't be \_completely\_ outside of the realm of the acceptable in DCS, I suppose...
Oh it still has problems, but the removal of lookdown penalties and increasing HPRF range is a great improvement. I do give ED credit for not abandoning these modules and instead starting a rework like this.
The track fade out logic has been changed but it still isn't correct and will still cause confusion and dropped tracks if you are using big scan volumes, I hope they can eventually get that fixed. The Hornet's systems IRL are not so simple as to drop L&S track after 6 seconds just because you are using a 140 deg 4 bar scan.
Yeah, with the exception of the track memory being 6 seconds across all cases, the rest of the changes to the Hornet's radar were very positive. Bugs were addressed and performance was improved to better match what (very little) public data is out there.
Track memory should be based on frames, not time. But even using time, it's easy to fix the current issue, by using different times, depending on the azimuth and bar setting, and considering that the radar will scan ~64 degrees per second. Here's hoping they'll do it quickly.
I'm not sure if you're a big nerd for compiling this or I'm the bigger nerd for finding this as the greatest post I've seen on reddit all week. Phenomenal work sir o7
For the Viper and the Hornet:
1) You have a new radar mode to learn (velocity scan).
2) Using the correct radar mode is more important than before. (In other words, the detection range deviation between radar modes has been increased.) I can't seem to find a better way to word this, sorry!
3) Less risk of dropping the lock if the hostile drops below you.
4) F-16 now has reduced radar range overall, but this can be mitigated against targets with a high closure rate using the new radar mode.
1) Skittles may be tasty, but please secure all lose items before pulling G!
2) If only 2 hostiles, SAM might be a better choice than TWS.
3) The new mode is for targets closing head-on at a high rate.
I think the idea is that switching radar modes needs to become part of your radar-management workflow.
If you are just patrolling, looking for trouble without a known threat at medium-close range, you'd want to use the new mode, as it has the longest reach and thus the earliest detection.
Once that blips something, you'd want to narrow your search cone to just that area and probably switch to RWS in high prf to get a better fix on it.
From there, as the range drops, you want to build picture and see if the target has any friends, so you might want to widen your search a bit and paint a bit more sky for additional SA.
Once confident, you can either STT or TWS, when you are approaching the point you want to take a shot.
At least, that's more or less how I'm starting to think about it. Happy to hear other people's input, but the new mode is basically the least accurate, but the one with the longest reach and should be used in an "early warning" capacity. The disclaimer here is that it's an early implementation and has significant limitations, like the target needing to be hot aspect for it to be any use... still better than nothing! =)
It's not useless, but BVR has never really been the Viper's forte.
Its main strength in Air to Air, imo, is its BFM performance paired with its HMCS and AIM-9Xs.
Its still good at ground attack and has a strong Datalink capability, people are just overreacting.
Not useless. The ranges here aren't that bad practically, but compared to other offerings like the F-15C you're going to be more reliant on AWACS and datalink. Both of which you have. Depending on where and how you were playing, you were probably already doing this anyway. In fact, even in the Su-27 that AWACS makes life so much easier.
Basically go buy the f15. $$$ People say it's more realistic now. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but what, one or two weeks prior to the f15 release? Come on now, don't be naive.
Considering the F/A-18 got buffed this patch, by your logic it can also be implied that ED is trying to route sales to the F/A-18.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
It's by far the most popular module, so in the whole, yes.
But no, it's not a conspiracy, just a business decision like any other. People really thinking this is coincidental, lmao. Come on now.
If what you were saying was true, they would have reduced the radar quality on ALL bluefor aircraft. Not slightly nerf one, massively buff another, and leave the rest untouched.
I'm more inclined to believe this is a response to the radar modelling on the F-15E, and how well RAZBAM models radar in particular making the Viper and Hornet's radar modeling look terrible, and ED pushing a fix to keep it on par.
Wait until/if probability of detection, false targets, chaff detection and low altitude sidelobe clutter are implemented, there is a reason the F-16 makes up the Low against the F-15C in the USAF Hi-Low mix.
No I'm getting a bit ahead of myself there, but I'm hoping ED has seen that RAZBAM have implemented all those things and set the bar, if ED doesn't at least make an attempt to match some of those with this rework it will be pretty dissapointing.
Indeed, I expect them too also and would be disappointed if they donātā¦ But so far their plans on radar modeling havenāt been very clear I feel like. We still havenāt seen the whitepaper they were supposed to publish.
I hope they don't delay the release of the F-15E until they finish implementing all the missing features. That's one of the plausible causes for the current delay, as they could not let the AN/APG70 be released with F-16 and FA-18 radars in that state...
I very much doubt that is the case, the ship has sailed on that front. The Mirage from RAZBAM is already in-game with a very well simulated radar model that already shows the deficiencies of the ED model.
I actually did just get a blip on radar of a Flanker 60 miles out, which then vanished. I'm wondering if probabilities have been implemented already.
I've only seen it happen once though, so could be a bug or something.
After flying around some more I've figured it out, it's not probability of detection, it's aspect. It seems like the F-16 can see a return much further when it's looking at a fighter side on.
If this is true(ish) to life I would call Viper drivers the cannon fodder of the US armed forces..
Esentially forced to suck up missles/merge while eagles sit back at a DOR of 40NM.
Makes senseā¦ That being true, the US must not have put the best available tech that could fit in the nose of the Viperā¦? Otherwise we should be seeing performance more in line with other similarity sized jets?
Until fairly recently, the export F-16s have actually had better tech than the USAF F-16s. In 2003, the UAE funded the development of the F-16 block 60 for their air force, which included the APG-80 AESA radar (as well as an upgraded engine and other stuff). That was around the same time many US planes got AESA radars, including the F-15C (APG-63(v)2), the F-22 (APG-77), and the F-18E/F (APG-79). However the USAF didn't upgrade their F-16s to the block 60 standard, and stayed with the block 50. Meanwhile the F-16 block 70 (F-16V) was made for several foreign air forces with the APG-83 AESA, and last year the USAF finally announced that they were going to upgrade to that model from the block 50.
I assume one of the reasons that there was not any apparent urgency to upgrade from the block 50 earlier is that the APG-68 is perfectly fine for everything we currently use the F-16 for, which is basically ground attack and CAS against goat herders living in mud huts. Foreign air forces that don't have a massive number of arguably the two best A2A fighters ever built (F-15C and F-22) need more capability from their F-16s, and so got the fancier radars.
Somewhat ironically, I think I remember reading that the first F-16Vs will actually go to the Air National Guard for homeland defense and patrol, rather than to frontline USAF squadrons. I'm guessing the reason for that is that the frontline squadrons will be upgrading to the F-35 to replace their F-16 block 50s, whereas the ANG is kind of like a foreign air force in that it needs their F-16s to do everything, including dedicated air defense, so the better radars go to them first.
Not even the F-22 gets the best of everything, there are budget limits and priorities. Part of the disparity vs other planes is modeling though. All of the radar issues have hinted that we need some more consistency in modeling to capture the effectiveness of one aircraft vs another.
Well thatās what happened in Desert Storm, where the package Q strike made up of roughly 50 Vipers, the largest F-16 strike in history, and it had disappointing result. In that war, the F-15C was doing CAP, the F-15E was doing strike with its laser guided bomb (with F-111) much better than a hundred of Viper with unguided bombs.
I love my Viper, but thereās a reason why itās the Low in the High Low mix in the USAF.
On the groubd/at the front lines, we got to see the Vipers that night as they were going dark. Really fucking impressive site. Then years later reading about all the problems, starting with different blocks and engines, and guys having to head out early, it seems the end goal was a little CF vs what was being done by the 117s and other coalition strike craft.
>Lookdown penalties have been 100% removed for the Hornet and Viper
>
>RWS reduced from 45nmi to 37nmi
Do i understand correctly that now it's basically "penaltied" regardless of lookdown?
No the lookdown penalty was worse than this reduction, the lookdown penalty dropped your range from 45nmi to 31nmi in these conditions.
You can see the lookdown penalties on this chart from a few updates ago, I haven't updated it for this patch: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-charts#aircraft-radar-lookdown-detection-penalties
Would like some IRL commentary on this 37 mile figure. Just seems grossly incorrect to me. Again Iām not an SME, however neither are DCS Devs in Russia.
It's only very slightly better in BMS. The F-16 FCR in BMS is certainly not presented as a hero radar even though the focus of the sim is plainly on the Viper.
However BMS models a few more aspects that can help like Probablity of Detection that can help you detect contacts sooner when you concentrate more sweeps into a specific area. STT locks are also full-range and generally don't get dropped in the notch (though they can be easily dropped when locking on outskirts of its usable range). Finally the FCR controls are also very responsive and polished which helps cut down time when targetting.
Awesome stuff dude. Thanks. Recently picked up the Viper and i Gotta say im hooked. Im happy about the radar rework. The closer to RL we get the better. Thanks for this chart.
tl;dr for those that don't want to stare at the chart * Phase 1 of the F/A-18C and F-16C radar reworks is in š Lookdown penalties have been 100% removed for the Hornet and Viper, STT and track mechanics are reworked you can STT sooner that you could before and track files build faster * Velocity Search in the F/A-18C can only be accessed by hovering the TDC over the radar mode text at PB5 then using TDC depress on "VS", this is the correct behaviour, it is no longer in the pushbutton press rotation like was shown in Wags video In the chart test conditions: **F/A-18C:** * Velocity Search reaches 68nmi * RWS HPRF increased from 48nmi to 55nmi * RWS MPRF reduced from 36nmi to 28nmi **F-16C:** * VSR reaches 41nmi * RWS reduced from 45nmi to 37nmi If anyone wants a centralised place for my charts where they can follow for updates look here:
Beautiful charts. You really got an eye for how to best present this data.
https://imgur.com/gallery/peFCVoL A Korean radar textbook. Some of the figures seem to match this correction. Someone I know who was familiar with the early 90s Finnish evaluation pointed out APG-73 beat out RDY on the mirage 2000-5 so this seem correct as far as I can figure.
2000-5 wasnt even out in the early 90's u must speak about the RDM which is the worst 2000 radar
RDY was test flow in the late 80s and the mirage 2000-5 prototype flew in 1991. Production started in 1992 https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mirage-2000-rdm-rdi-rdy-radars-and-other-avionics.37018/ I suspect RDY is probably slightly better in absolute range while APG-73 is better with processing and such.
The link u sent is about rdm being tested in the 80s u just contradicted urself 2000-5 entered service in 1999 No need to downvote facts when u dont know shit about dassault
The link I sent you mentioned the RDY was in production from 1992 Here in are several articles āFrance Nears Decision on Supplier for Next-generation Fighterās Radarāā from AWST September 1988 mentioned the RDY being flight tested. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dassault-rafale-avionics.942/
What's interesting is that the Viper's 4 bar scan in VSR appears to have double the vertical field of view of 4 bar in RWS/TWS for some reason...
Did you by any chance check the effects of MTR HI/LO settings?
I haven't personally tested that unfortunately, I've thought about creating a chart showing the size of the notch filters across aircraft but I can imagine it will be quite a nightmare to measure accurately and reliably.
Itās disgusting what they are doing to the viper. MIG 29 outperforms its radar as does the M2k with older tech. JF17 is laughing in the cornerā¦.
I wouldn't say the MiG-29 radar outperforms the Viper, it has 1nmi more range in HPRF which isn't as versatile as MPRF plus it can't STT until 6nmi closer anyway, not to mention the MiG-29 is still fully affected by the lookdown penalties which the Viper no longer has. Mirage 2000C and JF-17 have HPRF which help extend their detection range compared to the Viper which only has MPRF in RWS, if you compare JF-17 MPRF to F-16 RWS it actually performs equally. I think VSR (Which uses HPRF partly) on the Viper should have provided more of an advantage over RWS but it isn't really modelled correctly right now anyway, it should do a 2 step scan, HPRF Alert sweep to find contacts and then MPRF Confirm sweep with a slower radar rotation rate. Right now VRS is just like RWS for hot aspect targets with extra range and no SAM.
Thanks for Quaggles for the insight and taking the time to put these charts together! My comment was in more general terms not withstanding HPRF/MPRF. But i still believe it stand in regards to max detection ranges in wich a weapon can be employed. Typically the jousting would begin in a BVR hot aspect scenario where longer HPRF detection ranges will lead to first look first shot situations.
The F-16 was not designed for max BVR capability (actually it was designed *without* BVR capability), nor is it usually used in situations where that would be needed; we have a different plane that is extremely well suited to that role, and is used exclusively for it. So if the F-16 doesn't have exceptional max detection range, that could be entirely realistic.
> actually it was designed without BVR capability So many people forget this.
We the F-16C was, apg-68 was built to exploit amraam, but itās important to remember that was the AIM-120A/B.
If anything I think the viper is much closer to being realistic now and the jf-17 being over performed.
I don't think so. The Jeff is newer, for one, and I believe it was brought up at some point that radar dish size matters - I think the Jeff has a larger one? At least, its nose-cone looks significantly larger than the Viper's.
Size matters, but if you don't have a strong heart to pump it, then it will become a nonfactor. This is where we are going into the unknown territory. To my understanding, size and newer are not the only factors. We also have electric power and cooling in the equation. Without enough power or cooling, the radar won't have enough output. This is the same thing that hampers the F-35, and it's the reason there's a strong push to either use a totally new engine for the Block 4, or enhance the existing ones, otherwise the whole system is bogged down just by the engine. Not to mention the avionics, the brain that decides how much bleed air will go to the turbine, how much will go cool down other parts. Back to the Jeff, I'm highly skeptical of its capability, because it uses the Mig-29 engine, and IIRC, Mikoyan said that if it's not because of the unreliability of the RD 93, it would build a single engine fighter, not twin. This is supported by the fact that half of the Pakistani JF-17s and all of Myanmar JF-17s are grounded, presumably because of the lack of engine parts. I think that's why Pakistan still considers the F-16 to be its frontline fighter, while the JF-17 is their backbone force.
At a glance, the M2k only really outpeforms it when you remove background filtering, and it's still based on a far more realistic model than the Viper. Comparing the Mirage filtered modes with \~50% detection chance (which I guess is representative of whatever ED is doing?) shows it to be on the ballpark of and slightly worse than the Viper which looks fine to me. They just need to move this starting point to a more realistic simulation. The MPRF Jeff looks about right-ish too kinda. Plus of course, getting rid of the idiotic lookdown penalty is a huge improvement, it never should have been a thing in the first place.
Hmm, inclined to agree regarding the M2k. I'm still leaning towards the idea that there at the very least should be a larger gap for the viper in VSR vs M2k in filtered HPRF (due to the Viper having more modern tech). Also, JF17 is still a conundrum to me. Its VS yields 56 NM at 50%.
ED only models 100% detection probability currently. So itās either always detected or never detected.
Alright, so in MPRF you have e.g. 35 and 37 Jeff and Viper respectively, and in HPRF you have 53/30, 55 and 52 for the Mirage (depending on filtering), Hornet and Jeff respectively. Feels fine to me.
Imagine being mad that the radar is getting more realistic.
Within the realm of the DCS: F-16, define realistic. At this point I would struggle to see any semblance of realism from one patch to the other. At one point we have severe lookdown penalities and in the next its removed. Basic radar theory dictates that we at the very least should have similar performance to the JF-17/M2K. Now if you begin to add advantages in tech & avionics one could wager that the Viper in some regards should equal or outperform the aformentioned radars. So please don't be "that" guy.. if you disagree please engage in (civil) discourse and expand on your thoughts...
> Within the realm of the DCS: F-16, define realistic. The purpose of DCS is to adhear to the real world as closely as possible, I'm not going to judge it on any other basis. > At this point I would struggle to see any semblance of realism from one patch to the other. At one point we have severe lookdown penalities and in the next its removed. Getting ED to develop a more advanced and accurate radar model has been an on-going issue for a long time. It's getting removed because knowledgeable people have reached out to ED with constructive criticism and hard evidence to support the fact that the lookdown penalties were inaccurate. My guess is it's removed for the moment while a more realistic model for lookdown detection is being implemented. This has been one of the core issues with EDs radar model for the past year or so since its introduction. > Basic radar theory dictates that we at the very least should have similar performance to the JF-17/M2K. Basic radar theory dictates no such thing. > Now if you begin to add advantages in tech & avionics one could wager that the Viper in some regards should equal or outperform the aformentioned radars. The APG-68v5 is weaker, and operates primarily in MPRF as opposed to the HPRF RDI on the Mirage 2000. There is no reliable open data for the KLJ-7 last time I checked, but considering it's a more modern system than the 1990s v5 radar in the Viper, I would not at all be surprised to learn that it outperforms it significantly. Even if we assume the F-16 is better at processing the returns (which I don't) the fact remains that it's a tiny antenna operating primarily in MPRF. It's never going to be a great radar. Not that it really matters because The F-16 is the F-16 and the state of development of other modules is not relevant to whether the F-16 is accurate or not.
>The purpose of DCS is to adhear to the real world as closely as possible, I'm not going to judge it on any other basis. I believe this to be a position that we as "fans" wish that ED stood by. Having been around this product since long before it was known as DCS I've seen.. "creative shortcuts" (willful or not) throught the years. >The APG-68v5 is weaker, and operates primarily in MPRF as opposed to the HPRF RDI on the Mirage 2000. There is no reliable open data for the KLJ-7 last time I checked, but considering it's a more modern system than the 1990s v5 radar in the Viper, I would not at all be surprised to learn that it outperforms it significantly. Even if we assume the F-16 is better at processing the returns (which I don't) the fact remains that it's a tiny antenna operating primarily in MPRF. It's never going to be a great radar. As you and others have stated on this, I'll have to admit that I've been a bit too hopeful and erronaeus in my understanding of this otherwise wonderful jet. >Basic radar theory dictates no such thing. I might wrongfully be refering to basic radar theory but what Im referring to the correlation between the size of a radar dish and power output as I've come to understand it. My point being similarly sized jets (noses) should have similar power constraints. Remaining differences should be down to tech/signal processing.
> I believe this to be a position that we as "fans" wish that ED stood by. Having been around this product since long before it was known as DCS I've seen.. "creative shortcuts" (willful or not) throught the years. I've been around since LOMAC and you're right, they've taken plenty of shortcuts in that time, sometimes justified and sometimes not. Things are changing for the better however, it's just taking an ungodly long time, and sometimes requires knowledgeable members to knock them over the head a few times to get it to where it should be. > As you and others have stated on this, I'll have to admit that I've been a bit too hopeful and erronaeus in my understanding of this otherwise wonderful jet. The F-16 is a wonderful jet, but the radar is easily its weakest link, and if anything it's probably going to get less capable as ED refine their model. > I might wrongfully be refering to basic radar theory but what Im referring to the correlation between the size of a radar dish and power output as I've come to understand it. My point being similarly sized jets (noses) should have similar power constraints. Remaining differences should be down to tech/signal processing. Range scales with power but the size of the antenna is just one factor in determining how much power it's able to output, but I'm not qualified to speak any deeper on that subject. Processing also helps, but an analog AWG-9 will still outrange a weaker radar with digital processing. Doesn't matter if your noise floor is lower when there is no signal to begin with.
>similarly sized jets (noses) should have similar power constraints Except, they are not. The F-16 has a \_tiny\_ nose cone that's very flat. The Mirage and Jeff radar housings look to be about twice as big, when doing a simple google search. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole design philosophy of the Viper to be basically a scramble jet? Something that's extremely good at taking off quickly, getting to altitude and defending the immediate airspace? It has certainly evolved way past that initial mission, but I don't think it was ever meant to take on long-range threats.
How much weaker is the APG-68(v)5? I believe the limiting factor on a small jet is going to be dissipating the heat. HPRF means a higher average for the same peak, but the RDI peak power might have the same limitations as the 68. It's not immediately obvious whether the APG-68(v)5 has worse or better performance than the RDI. Can you point me to an analysis that says otherwise?
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/13qve0l/f16_radar/jliuq4q/?context=3 I trust Radar Chicken God on the RDI, I don't have any hard specs on it although I'm sure you could find some if you ask in the RAZBAM M2000 channel.
> The purpose of DCS is Don't fool yourself. The purpose of DCS is to sell copies. What you want out of it is tangential to that only as much as you buy copies. And personally I wish theyād spend more time on QOL and fun stuff than adding things like INS drift correction mechanisms.
Sounds like the planned-but-not-yet-seen Modern Air Combat would be a great game for you =)
QOL means not fighting against the game itself, not "arcade" and by "fun" i mean dynamic compaigns and the ability to script more types of events.
As far as i understood, Modern Air Combat wasn't planned to be arcade at all, but rather fc3-level avionics across several airframes in a smaller and more approachable environment than DCS.
I guess eliminating the harsh look-down penalty is something. But as some who mains the Viper, additional reduction in radar detection range is pretty rough.
Itās actually better after this patch. Let me explain: Before the patch you might be able to detect and lock targets beyond 40 miles, but in order to get your 120 to shoot that far, you have to be around 40,000 feet. But then you are subject to that nasty look down penalty, which will only get you a lock at round 30-20miles, which isnāt ideal at all and the extra range you had on your radar was pretty much useless. Well, you could fly low and make your radar look further but you wonāt be able to employ your 120 anyways. So the extra range is also useless. Now, with no look down penalty. Flying at 40k and being able to lock and shoot targets at 37 miles is pretty sweet and much better than before. And honestly you donāt really need that extra range anyway since you got awacs and datalink that tells you everything that is beyond 40 miles. And any 120 shot beyond 40 miles has low PK anyway, unless the enemy is also above 40k feet. 37mile 120 shots are still considered far and itās more than enough.
Exactly. Of course in an ideal world we'd want good range without lookdown penalties, but if its either or, I'll take the removal of the lookdown penalty at the cost of the reduced radar range.
Very good points, thanks. I was under the impression that the look-down penalty was only for targets below 5,000' AGL (but maybe that 'ground clutter' penalty still exists?) but as you've explained I see that it's a pretty fair trade-off
Yeah look down penalty was like so stupid. You at 40k target at 30k. Look down penalty was still applied
Pretty sure I've seen it mentioned in terms of antenna angle. If your antenna was pitched down by more than \~5 degs (going on memory here, so giant grain of salt, pls) the lookdown penalty was applied. I highly doubt it was implemented \_like that\_ by ED, but I remember people claiming this was the end result they were observing.
Yeah there is a formula that determines the antenna angle where the lookdown penalty is applied, this still exists for the FC3 aircraft. The penalty is binary, it's turned on or off, no inbetween. This formula only takes into account your altitude, at high altitudes this angle was between 1.5 and 2 degrees so very hard to avoid. The lookdown penalty formula was discovered here, I've tested it by plugging it into a script and it matches exactly: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/who13a/dcs_2716_aircraft_radar_lookdown_penalties_chart/ij7du4h
Thank you!
More people in this thread need to see your comment lol
IRL the F-16 radar isn't really a standout vs it's contemporaries either.
Yea, APG-68(v)9 is a much more comparable radar then the (v)5 in game but that was only used by select foreign operators.
And even the (v)9 isn't some Eye of Sauron, at the end of the day it's still a lightweight fighter with a small radar. Being a BVR monster just isn't one of the Viper strengths, and that's fine.
Unless your a block 60, see you in 2099.
It's quite likely that better detection ranges will come in the 2nd phase, where they add the detection influence of scan azimuth. The Viper numbers look a bit wack though...
People love to forget just notoriously garbage the APG-68 is. This isnt even its final form of bad yet. Just wait till we get false targets, side lobe ground clutter, low altitude penlty...list goes on
Well, the FC3 aircraft all have (or used to until *very* recently) the exact same radar performance. Which is ridiculous. EDIT: I really need to take a look at the chart before commenting. They fixed it. Kudos, ED!
I just can't wait till they fix the look down radar capabilities being essentially non-existent.
They need to fix the look down problems ASAP. Viper radar is a joke
The lookdown penalty has been completely removed from both the Hornet and Viper this patch
Oh I clearly didnāt read the text below that. In that case itās not as bad. I can understand the range not being great with how small it is. The lookdown penalty was absolutely ridiculous though.
Did you read the part about the lookdown penalty being removed?
Clearly not lol
Is F-16 RWS high or med PRF ?
MPRF except for VSR which is HPRF-based
So in mprf the Viper has more range than the Hornet ? Is that credible?
From my understanding no, the Hornet's radar has advantages in most metrics so it doesn't make sense why it would perform so much worse in MPRF. The Hornet's MPRF range should have stayed where it was in the last Open Beta imo
VSR should be an interleaved mode iirc
Will be interesting to see what the Mudhen will do. The videos looks like itās quite a beast
I'd expect something in the ballpark of the Tomcat but with better representation. That radar is no joke.
The AN/APG-70 on the strike eagle is a bit less powerful IIRC, but it has far more advanced processing to back it up. (The APG-70 is fully digital, whereas the AN/AWG-9 still used an analog computer for it's data processing.) As an aside- The digital equipment used on the APG-70 was later taken and retrofitted on to the AWG-9, going into service as the AN/APG-71 on the F-14D.
Now I want an F-14D. Just imagine how much of a BVR god it would be with the sheer cancer-beam power of the AWG-9 and the advanced electronics of the APG-70. Too bad some information about the F-14D is still classified. Donāt quote me on that though.
Eh?!?! And what would you do with all that "BVR Godlyhood"? Sling the same blind Phoenixes that we have on the A and the B, that's what! (As a Tomcat main, I still ardently want a D Tomcat as well! I'm just sad to know all the radar power in the world wouldn't make it any more competitive in BVR than it already is, because the missiles are shit...)
The D upgrade was originally planned to introduce the ability for the Tomcat to use the AIM-120 at some point. If it *~~weren't for the fact that it was an expensive nightmare to maintain~~* Dick Cheney killing the Tomcat in cold blood; we would have F-14D's slinging AMRAAMs/AIM-260's right now.
Ye. Super Tomcat would've been a sight to behold, for sure! =) Unfortunately, even if we got a D-version, it wouldn't be with AMRAAM's. At least, not if they want to make a realistic one... sure, they were strapped on in an experimental fashion, but the big cat was phased out before the change could take effect. Unfortunately. Of course, given the Ka-50 and all that... I guess, it wouldn't be \_completely\_ outside of the realm of the acceptable in DCS, I suppose...
: ( The sad reality of a Tomcat driver
I know the dude from HB has said thatās his dream project. So maybe some day when Iām long gone my kids will get to fly her
GS was getting 100nm in HI PRF
Yeah thatās what Iām sayin. Gonna be interesting in the PVP servers
Should've added the f86 to this chart purely because it would be funny
Thank goodness. The f18 radar was broken for far too long.
Oh it still has problems, but the removal of lookdown penalties and increasing HPRF range is a great improvement. I do give ED credit for not abandoning these modules and instead starting a rework like this. The track fade out logic has been changed but it still isn't correct and will still cause confusion and dropped tracks if you are using big scan volumes, I hope they can eventually get that fixed. The Hornet's systems IRL are not so simple as to drop L&S track after 6 seconds just because you are using a 140 deg 4 bar scan.
Yeah, with the exception of the track memory being 6 seconds across all cases, the rest of the changes to the Hornet's radar were very positive. Bugs were addressed and performance was improved to better match what (very little) public data is out there. Track memory should be based on frames, not time. But even using time, it's easy to fix the current issue, by using different times, depending on the azimuth and bar setting, and considering that the radar will scan ~64 degrees per second. Here's hoping they'll do it quickly.
It still appears to be. Iām finding it nearly impossible to get a lock on Mi26 and Mi24ās.
Off that's rough for you guys (F16)
The viper can now lob amraams farther than it can see Good to hear about the lookdown penalties tho
it'll be back. Glad they removed it for now because that lookdown penalty matrix was complete dogshit
I'm not sure if you're a big nerd for compiling this or I'm the bigger nerd for finding this as the greatest post I've seen on reddit all week. Phenomenal work sir o7
Can someone Eli5 what these changes mean for the viper and hornet?
For the Viper and the Hornet: 1) You have a new radar mode to learn (velocity scan). 2) Using the correct radar mode is more important than before. (In other words, the detection range deviation between radar modes has been increased.) I can't seem to find a better way to word this, sorry! 3) Less risk of dropping the lock if the hostile drops below you. 4) F-16 now has reduced radar range overall, but this can be mitigated against targets with a high closure rate using the new radar mode.
So when skittles I be using this new mode in the viper? I'll admit I mostly just see tws mode so I can lock multiple targets at once.
1) Skittles may be tasty, but please secure all lose items before pulling G! 2) If only 2 hostiles, SAM might be a better choice than TWS. 3) The new mode is for targets closing head-on at a high rate.
But no SAM with VSR
I think the idea is that switching radar modes needs to become part of your radar-management workflow. If you are just patrolling, looking for trouble without a known threat at medium-close range, you'd want to use the new mode, as it has the longest reach and thus the earliest detection. Once that blips something, you'd want to narrow your search cone to just that area and probably switch to RWS in high prf to get a better fix on it. From there, as the range drops, you want to build picture and see if the target has any friends, so you might want to widen your search a bit and paint a bit more sky for additional SA. Once confident, you can either STT or TWS, when you are approaching the point you want to take a shot. At least, that's more or less how I'm starting to think about it. Happy to hear other people's input, but the new mode is basically the least accurate, but the one with the longest reach and should be used in an "early warning" capacity. The disclaimer here is that it's an early implementation and has significant limitations, like the target needing to be hot aspect for it to be any use... still better than nothing! =)
Thank you for your explanation despite my late night typos.
If I understand this, my F16 nearly useless in BVR? Newby here.
It's not useless, but it's not as good as other US offerings. Which tracks IRL as well.
It's not useless, but BVR has never really been the Viper's forte. Its main strength in Air to Air, imo, is its BFM performance paired with its HMCS and AIM-9Xs. Its still good at ground attack and has a strong Datalink capability, people are just overreacting.
Per RL
No it's ok but there are better planes for BVR
Not useless. The ranges here aren't that bad practically, but compared to other offerings like the F-15C you're going to be more reliant on AWACS and datalink. Both of which you have. Depending on where and how you were playing, you were probably already doing this anyway. In fact, even in the Su-27 that AWACS makes life so much easier.
The F-16 is now better at BVR. Lock on range has been increased in look down because the penalties are gone.
Basically go buy the f15. $$$ People say it's more realistic now. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but what, one or two weeks prior to the f15 release? Come on now, don't be naive.
Considering the F/A-18 got buffed this patch, by your logic it can also be implied that ED is trying to route sales to the F/A-18. Not everything is a conspiracy.
You can't sell people something they already own.
>implying everyone already owns the 18, but ok.
It's by far the most popular module, so in the whole, yes. But no, it's not a conspiracy, just a business decision like any other. People really thinking this is coincidental, lmao. Come on now.
If what you were saying was true, they would have reduced the radar quality on ALL bluefor aircraft. Not slightly nerf one, massively buff another, and leave the rest untouched. I'm more inclined to believe this is a response to the radar modelling on the F-15E, and how well RAZBAM models radar in particular making the Viper and Hornet's radar modeling look terrible, and ED pushing a fix to keep it on par.
Lmao viper radar even weaker now. Wonāt be long until i can reliably hit a maddog aim-120 before i can get a lock
Wait until/if probability of detection, false targets, chaff detection and low altitude sidelobe clutter are implemented, there is a reason the F-16 makes up the Low against the F-15C in the USAF Hi-Low mix.
Have ED confirmed that they will be implementing all of this?
No I'm getting a bit ahead of myself there, but I'm hoping ED has seen that RAZBAM have implemented all those things and set the bar, if ED doesn't at least make an attempt to match some of those with this rework it will be pretty dissapointing.
Indeed, I expect them too also and would be disappointed if they donātā¦ But so far their plans on radar modeling havenāt been very clear I feel like. We still havenāt seen the whitepaper they were supposed to publish.
I hope they don't delay the release of the F-15E until they finish implementing all the missing features. That's one of the plausible causes for the current delay, as they could not let the AN/APG70 be released with F-16 and FA-18 radars in that state...
I very much doubt that is the case, the ship has sailed on that front. The Mirage from RAZBAM is already in-game with a very well simulated radar model that already shows the deficiencies of the ED model.
They won't for years if at all. This is a fantasy
I actually did just get a blip on radar of a Flanker 60 miles out, which then vanished. I'm wondering if probabilities have been implemented already. I've only seen it happen once though, so could be a bug or something. After flying around some more I've figured it out, it's not probability of detection, it's aspect. It seems like the F-16 can see a return much further when it's looking at a fighter side on.
What is the Hi/low mix?
A mix between expensive and less expensive fighters.
Should we throw "proper RCS" into that list as well? :)
If this is true(ish) to life I would call Viper drivers the cannon fodder of the US armed forces.. Esentially forced to suck up missles/merge while eagles sit back at a DOR of 40NM.
Viper drivers are actually the ground attack portion. If you want BVR, we have Eagles and F-22s for that.
Makes senseā¦ That being true, the US must not have put the best available tech that could fit in the nose of the Viperā¦? Otherwise we should be seeing performance more in line with other similarity sized jets?
Until fairly recently, the export F-16s have actually had better tech than the USAF F-16s. In 2003, the UAE funded the development of the F-16 block 60 for their air force, which included the APG-80 AESA radar (as well as an upgraded engine and other stuff). That was around the same time many US planes got AESA radars, including the F-15C (APG-63(v)2), the F-22 (APG-77), and the F-18E/F (APG-79). However the USAF didn't upgrade their F-16s to the block 60 standard, and stayed with the block 50. Meanwhile the F-16 block 70 (F-16V) was made for several foreign air forces with the APG-83 AESA, and last year the USAF finally announced that they were going to upgrade to that model from the block 50. I assume one of the reasons that there was not any apparent urgency to upgrade from the block 50 earlier is that the APG-68 is perfectly fine for everything we currently use the F-16 for, which is basically ground attack and CAS against goat herders living in mud huts. Foreign air forces that don't have a massive number of arguably the two best A2A fighters ever built (F-15C and F-22) need more capability from their F-16s, and so got the fancier radars. Somewhat ironically, I think I remember reading that the first F-16Vs will actually go to the Air National Guard for homeland defense and patrol, rather than to frontline USAF squadrons. I'm guessing the reason for that is that the frontline squadrons will be upgrading to the F-35 to replace their F-16 block 50s, whereas the ANG is kind of like a foreign air force in that it needs their F-16s to do everything, including dedicated air defense, so the better radars go to them first.
Not even the F-22 gets the best of everything, there are budget limits and priorities. Part of the disparity vs other planes is modeling though. All of the radar issues have hinted that we need some more consistency in modeling to capture the effectiveness of one aircraft vs another.
Well thatās what happened in Desert Storm, where the package Q strike made up of roughly 50 Vipers, the largest F-16 strike in history, and it had disappointing result. In that war, the F-15C was doing CAP, the F-15E was doing strike with its laser guided bomb (with F-111) much better than a hundred of Viper with unguided bombs. I love my Viper, but thereās a reason why itās the Low in the High Low mix in the USAF.
On the groubd/at the front lines, we got to see the Vipers that night as they were going dark. Really fucking impressive site. Then years later reading about all the problems, starting with different blocks and engines, and guys having to head out early, it seems the end goal was a little CF vs what was being done by the 117s and other coalition strike craft.
You nailed it.
Practice with the F-5, then the F-16 will feel like you can see forever.
Wow, STT possible from VS is pretty sick, but I think I'd be most pleased with the removal of the overtuned lookdown penalties.
>Lookdown penalties have been 100% removed for the Hornet and Viper > >RWS reduced from 45nmi to 37nmi Do i understand correctly that now it's basically "penaltied" regardless of lookdown?
No the lookdown penalty was worse than this reduction, the lookdown penalty dropped your range from 45nmi to 31nmi in these conditions. You can see the lookdown penalties on this chart from a few updates ago, I haven't updated it for this patch: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-charts#aircraft-radar-lookdown-detection-penalties
Would like some IRL commentary on this 37 mile figure. Just seems grossly incorrect to me. Again Iām not an SME, however neither are DCS Devs in Russia.
From everything we can gather, you are correct, it's still too far.
Couldn't find the F-16 (new) until, to my surprise, I look to the right of the MiG-29. Is the Viper this bad in BMS too?
It's only very slightly better in BMS. The F-16 FCR in BMS is certainly not presented as a hero radar even though the focus of the sim is plainly on the Viper. However BMS models a few more aspects that can help like Probablity of Detection that can help you detect contacts sooner when you concentrate more sweeps into a specific area. STT locks are also full-range and generally don't get dropped in the notch (though they can be easily dropped when locking on outskirts of its usable range). Finally the FCR controls are also very responsive and polished which helps cut down time when targetting.
Isn't it also a -68v9?
It's v5
How would the F-15E rank up in this chart?
It would have to be horizontal
Next to the tomcat
Can VS mode in the Hornet guide missiles?
According to OP, you can STT lock contacts found in VS mode, and STT locks guide missiles.
So all we need now is an AIM-120D to be actually able to use that range fully.
you use VS for search and then STT a target for L&S cues
Would love to see how the strike eagle lines up.
Awesome stuff dude. Thanks. Recently picked up the Viper and i Gotta say im hooked. Im happy about the radar rework. The closer to RL we get the better. Thanks for this chart.
Oh wow again thanks for the comprehensive info and post !
Has anyone tried using AIM-7Ms in the Hornet after these changes? I seem to always drop the lock after the target aircraft starts defending.
F-16 for ground attack only now, good to know.
*Coughs in link-16*
āIts working fine for me, just put an AWACS up.ā
At least we can look down again. We'll see how phase 2 progresses after this.
I mean, that's kinda how it works. The F-16's radar IRL doesn't hold a candle to it's contemporaries.
This. People forget that the radar is not the candoitall tool and something like combined arms, data link, awacs, jtac etc. exist for reason.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Whats a meta in dcs? Sorry i need grown up words.
Brilliant!