yeah that too, but even just fixing the back scan would be nice, since on live the slow update makes the radar quite poor
EldE radar is quite a lot better
I still think the previous representation in game is a misunderstanding of what electronic back-scan means. But I am open to believe it, it’s not unheard of to have both forwards and backwards beams, but the only source that actually mentions any of this is radartutorial, which lists as source the brochures as well, so it’s prone to have been misinterpreted as well.
Any official documentation I found on the Sentinel mentions absolutely zero about a fixed rearwards facing beam, and the research paper on a Sentinel radar in use for meteorology I’ve found do mention explicitly the ‘electronic back-scan’ but clarify it means beamsteering in azimuth. The reason why the backscan is part of the rpm is basically because it says: “30rpm with additional electronic steering in azimuth”.
Sources on “back-scan”:
Spoiler
“Back scan” further clarified:
Sources on the actual sentinel:
Spoiler
If it really had two beams, update rate would be twice as fast, but 30 rpm = 2s update rate, if it had two beams, update rate would be 1s.
And lastly, Radartutorial, probably the cause of this misunderstanding:
Spoiler
The only supporting piece, mind you this one mentions 15rpm with a 30 rpm achievable only virtually with “back-to-back” scan. I don’t know, but I feel this was just a misinterpretation, because “back-to-back” was never said anywhere before.
But again, open for new interpretations, more here: Incorrect Radar Specifications for the: "AN/MPQ-64" Radar
2 Likes
There is one more, The brochure
Tho this one looks like a simple oopsie while making the 3d simulation/graphic
2 Likes
Hm I’ve not seen this one before, interesting. But if it’s a correct image, then that beam that is shown is rather odd, as the ESA uses a pencil beam, which this isn’t. Assuming this comes from an actual simulation, which is correct, it may be the IFF beam of the rearwards facing IFF antenna (that I at least think it may be). The IFF beamwidth in elevation is 40°, which I guess makes sense here, it looks close to that at least. And simply the person who wanted a picture, took the wrong still frame from the simulation. But idk, maybe not.
Forward/Backwards Scan example TRML-4D
One day Gaijin realised surely that there current “Backscan” is just BS
?
Zusammenfassung
This is a Sentence
Sorry to say this, but even tho Gunjob is a great guy, he has no impact on what devs do.
1 Like
Ye, he helped Us on alot of stuff be it the Eurofighter or other stuff, Gunjob is on our (player) side
1 Like
All I’m trying to say is that an internal bug report may have been made. And the devs just acted on that report. Not that he forced this change of course. Since only moderators I think can make internal/hidden reports, and afaik no visible report was made on this.
I don’t think the developers themselves were frantically searching for sources on Sentinel to get this fixed, as they usually just forget about things after the initial implementation, but I could be wrong.
Welcome to WT, thats sadly normal (atleast it feels like it)
i thought that rear facing smaller radar dish looking thing was a single beam just to update TWS positions
so not a wide search is how i assuemd it worked
Honestly that’s possible still, but I have no sources to back up that behavior. But I think it being the IFF antenna is more likely. The Sentinel is basically a cut down and rotated TPQ-36, which does not have IFF.
And the rectangular box underneath this antenna (to which the rear antenna is connected to, if you look at closeups) you see may just hold the IFF interrogator, at least looking at pictures of the interrogator, it may fit the overall shape of one.
This is TPQ-36, note the clear backside and the front of both Sentinel and TPQ-36 is pretty much the same. So the differences between them must include the IFF antenna, which this rearwards facing antenna may just be.
cus what else would backscan mean
calling just iff backscan would be weird, and to perform iff you still need to find the target again
ok, so what this is showing is that if this is what they mean by backscan the current implementation is updating datalink 1/3rd as often as it should
Keep in mind, the Video shows Forward and Backward Scanning, so in case for the NASAMs radar its just 1 scan/update missing
that would still be doubling the update rate which would massively improve the system
especially given that when that occurs would be a half second after the scan, and for TWS to give an accurate position it needs to scan something twice, so it would go from needing 2 seconds after acquiring to be able to engage down to 0.5 seconds
and given the software updates and hardware updates the later versions would 100% be scanning both forward and backwards
Or in other words, it would be a AESA Radar )))
You got sources?
no, but it would be possible through software changes, and fit the vague claims like “improved target tracking”
Ok, but without sources you will never see that (insert Evil Laugh from a TRML-4D pov)