[FIXED] BMEWS Showing an Area of Uncertainty in Both Range and Azimuth
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:23 pm
See attached save.
Not happy at all about this behaviour from these radars. If you accept that down range, the beamwidth might be an issue (1nm for every 60nm down range for a 1 deg effective beamwidth), the range uncertainty of a pulsed radar should not exist (at least to the degree it does in the save).
If you turn Fylingdales back on instead of just relying on Thule, the data sharing should resolve the ambiguities from each radar (I would have thought).
Range should be accurate to the effective received pulse width (in the order of 100's of metres not the many kilometers shown in the save). Pulse width (actual or received) may not be modelled, but its effect should be. This may effect more than just the BMEWS types, but it is all I have tested here
(edit... posted this as an issue in Tech Support, but oddly it's showing here in the main forum
)
Not happy at all about this behaviour from these radars. If you accept that down range, the beamwidth might be an issue (1nm for every 60nm down range for a 1 deg effective beamwidth), the range uncertainty of a pulsed radar should not exist (at least to the degree it does in the save).
If you turn Fylingdales back on instead of just relying on Thule, the data sharing should resolve the ambiguities from each radar (I would have thought).
Range should be accurate to the effective received pulse width (in the order of 100's of metres not the many kilometers shown in the save). Pulse width (actual or received) may not be modelled, but its effect should be. This may effect more than just the BMEWS types, but it is all I have tested here
(edit... posted this as an issue in Tech Support, but oddly it's showing here in the main forum
