Because the sources you are asking for are not open sources genius.
But pretending western radars have less range than the missiles they are carrying while be the largest apertures and with the most TR modules, just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
All I am gonna say
need
This right here is all I need to post to prove you don’t know.
In 1974 with the OG -63 (not even v1) was getting real-world testing proving look-down detection over 85 miles.
The v2 supposed dramatically increased this performance against cruise missiles, an even smaller RCS target.
To assume the v3 doesn’t improve over the v2 when it is a significant leap technologically is farcical.
that what i said if you took time to read
should i remind you this too
TBF, cruise missiles are generally only really tracked in HPRF head-on modes, increased performance against them does not necessarily mean increased all aspect detection. As performance in such modes, particularly against low RCS targets, can generally be achieved through a refinement of search/track parameters, ie filtering out more results outside of an expected range, bringing the detection rate up.
Anyways, all of that being said, the chart you showed is only for detection ranges (which explains why they’re so spread about), it should be clarified if track or detection ranges are being discussed.
APG-82 is another improvement over the v3
Which 1.) is larger than the T-33s RCS and 2.) a range from 2-5m is such a wide variance, if you are going to post those range numbers and not convert them yourself using a radar equation. you’re literally just being deliberately obtuse to push nonsense.
i am pushing nonsense ? its you who overreacted like someone insulted you, yet you said yourself, there no info about this radar genius. i gave a estimate number of the apg82 on the f15ex and you bring me some old 1970 radar
Yes. I posted the actual data on a radar system 50+ years old, showing how even a moderate increase in capability from that time for a derivative system(though at this point pretty far removed from the OG) would far exceed any numbers you posted.
That is not what I said.
you should stop this nonsense, its better for this forum, radar dont matter, take it or leave, awacs are the strong cards now, weak or powerfull radar, it doesn’t matter. f15ex dont have strong missile against modern one on long range, it will be weak against a pl17 or pl15 or even r37m. the only its can save it is the aim174 or the aim260 which is not intergrated in the f15e or the f15ex
really ?
Notice a very important distinction between the two?
But it does.
It is directly relevant to how an aircraft will play in-game, given a lack of AWACS or any radar data linking at all.
its will face more strong aircraft with bigger and longer range missile, r33 alone can give the f15 a hard time in range even if its a sarh missile, su35s with better missile, mig31 with r37m ( maybe not ), pl15 on j16
not just 85 miles, 85NM so pretty much 100 miles
Closer to 93.
Nvm it’s 98 it’s pretty much 100
Internal should be 13,511 lb
External 3 tanks should be 12,444 lb
and Conformal should be 9,829 lb
idk how much id trust this graphic
it looks pretty simple and there is an error in the f15ex section because the official top speed is mach 2.5+ not just 2.5 (iirc there was a Boeing executive who said 2.8 before deleting it)
Thank you. I fixed the numbers.
It still originates from an official source by the USAF, but I’m correcting it to Mach 2.5+, meaning over Mach 2.5. The information from the Boeing executive wasn’t intended for public release, so while it’s partially accurate, I’ll leave it as it is.
