I mean, that’s how it works right now.
It doesn’t show enemies; Only friendlies (send you their own location via datalink).
Now you could make an argument that not all air and ground vehicles have (compatible) datalink capability to send you their location, but then again, in the game, even I-15 gets both Soviet and NATO compatible IFF transponder. (And for obvious reasons)
So A-10C is fine; Other planes should get their datalink capability. Both in terms of showing friendly contacts, but also sharing radar contacts.
Yes, this will change the nature of the game, especially in SB but also in RB to some degree (especially if they add radar contact sharing), but so be it … It’s realistic and the nature of the beast (modern air combat).
God those got forwarded for review quick. But yeah the implementation of TV tracking cueing to your radar is so inconsistent. Not only for the Rafale but on everything else that can do it. F-14B, Su-34, Eurofighters, Kurnass 2000 all also have this feature but it barely works. In the case of the Kurnass 200 it doesn’t work at all. The only aircraft that has this working properly is the F-15E with the LANTIRN pod equipped but I’m not entirely sure if it is meant to even have it.
@k_stepanovich First off, sorry if I tag you too often, but considering that you are present and active on the forums, I assume you are willing to engage in discussions.
I had posted this in F-16 thread:
RBE2 AESA brochures also list and illustrate a similar capability:
And this magazine by Dassault and partners clarifies that this is one of the inherent advantages of the electronically scanned radars over mechanical radars:
Considering that multiple AESA and PESA radars are shown to have this capability (which results from the inherent high speed of electronic beam steering), don’t you think it’s reasonable to give this capability to all AESA and PESA radars unless proven otherwise?
To the best of my understanding the way this works is that because electronic beam steering (both PESA and AESA) allows you to steer and move the beam to an arbitrary position very rapidly (unlike a mechanical antenna which takes time to move due to its mass), you can essentially “pause” your regular scan pattern briefly, move the beam outside the scan volume to update a track, and then return and resume your scan pattern.
In fact, even sufficiently advanced mechanical radars seem to have a "discount version’ of this capability:
Of course on a mechanical radar it doesn’t work as good and for as many tracks, since it takes more time to take the mechanical antenna outside of the scan pattern and then return it again, compared to an AESA or PESA which can steer the beam electronically, very rapidly.
It is a result of the ability to split and use multiple separate beams I’d think, not the speed alone… or am I not understanding how this works?
PESA would be unable to split the beam into multiple directions I’d think, or at least not in the same way the AESA could as it has individual transmit and receive modules.
You don’t need beam splitting for that, and from what I heard beam splitting is not always that desirable or doable IRL anyways (since it splits your radar’s power output, reducing its range against a target of a given RCS).
To the best of my understanding the way this works is that because electronic beam steering (both PESA and AESA) allows you to steer and move the beam to an arbitrary position very rapidly (unlike a mechanical antenna which takes time to move due to its mass), you can essentially “pause” your regular scan pattern briefly, move the beam outside the scan volume to update a track, and then return and resume your scan pattern.
Of course on a mechanical radar it doesn’t work as good and for as many tracks, since it takes more time to take the mechanical antenna outside of the scan pattern and then return it again, compared to an AESA or PESA which can steer the beam electronically, very rapidly.
Assuming that a 1:1 ratio between T/R modules & antenna, and a module count greater than one defines the boundary between an AESA and PESA radar, fixed zoning (grouping) of modules together would allow for multiple (PESA) “beams” to be formed. Though of course it would less flexible then true AESA solutions.
Something else to take into account is that commanding the radar to perform multiple tasks simultaneously may not always be possible (e.g. long range priority track + TWS etc.) even with an AESA, as improper division of tasks or due to Reduced effective Duty cycle / the reduced radiated power’s impact on maximum range detection range may cause dropped targets, or insufficient returns to be generated.
