In the same time they co-existed Tomcat had the second best radar in the world, with the best being AN/APG-77.
EF2K received a comparable or better radar way after F-14s retired. Imagine Germany got their first EF2K by 2003, Tomcats (in general) had already start to phase out , the last of them being at 2006.
Imagine, in pilot interviews they say about APG-71 that the "radar could do everything , the problem was… could missiles follow? "
Also, you can’t really compare 2020+ planes with 1990s/2ks … it’s advancement in technology , most of the times newer is better. But , by the same time…yes F-14D radar/electronics (ECM/ECCM etc.) was unrivaled if you were not an F-22.
Why do people compare apples with oranges…ALL THE TIME.
Compare with everything build in 1991 and the F-14D is nearly 10-15 years ahead in avionics (not talking pods).
That video appears to describe a traditional data link where target tracks and friendly aircraft locations are exchanged between the different aircraft. MikeyPlayzonYT appears to be claiming that Link-4C would allow raw radar data to be exchanged between two aircraft, somehow doubling the detection range of both aircraft’s radars. As far as I can see, there is not any evidence to backup his interpretation, though I would happily be proving wrong, hence asking.
Also note the in the Block diagram “Slave to Computer Pointing Information”, which is distinct from the “Slave to Radar Pointing Information”
Additionally worth noting the SLAC (Slave to Computer) functional description, and is separate to both Radar to Sensor and Sensor to Radar co-ordinate transfer functional descriptions. And as such likely has Target Mastering (triangulation) and contact sharing functionality built in.
Further that both following excerpts indicate the potential for ADR (Altitude Difference Ranging) capability, and Sensor-slaved Radar Range Determination, which likely extends range as the waveform can be optimized purely for extended ranging capability, since the sensor provides superior angular resolution.
so in other words:
you tell the radar exactly where to look instead of it having to search for it itself, which makes it able to target something that is further out than its normal detection range
That’s not how physics works. Radar range is proportional to the 4th root of the transmit power. So to double the range you need to increase the power by 16x, not 2x.
Obviously doubling the antenna area, would have an impact. But you are still not going to get anywhere near double the range.
Currently we have the F-14A (Early) Block 75/95 (I do hope at some point we’ll get the F-14A (Late) which would be the Block 135 with the ALQ-100 antenna and TCS)
What’s the aspect for the 100 nmi figure for APG-71 though?
Because the 200 nmi figure for Captor is most likely in head-on aspect …
Apart from the fact that it’s pilot’s statement and on a real mission rather than perfect test scenario.
And the system performance can degrade over time and due to wear and won’t necessarily match the “out of the factory” performance …
As for weight, you are comparing a radar that retired in 2006 with one that entered service in 2003
Of course it’s gonna be lighter …
TBH this “we made a really advanced mechanical radar” is next level cope when everybody and their grandma were fielding PESA and AESA at that point … (US, Japan, Russia, France, India)
Long range detection in a lookup scenario against the largest target type? LPRF would have no issues detecting out to those ranges regardless of aspect. CAPTOR-M is a coherent LPRF as well, which increases range performance.
do you have actual sources for that? Because two radars with a max range of 230 miles operating right next to each other dont see any further than 230 miles because the antenna doesnt allow it. Same way your car has two headlights but doesnt make you see furhter than one headlight, it just allows you to see more within that distance.
The radar itself can do 460 miles, yes. However the antenna limits it to 230 miles. Having two radars next to each other doesnt magically increase their range, because the antenna still only allows them to see up to 230 miles.
If the radar’s bottleneck only allows it to see 230 miles away, youre not making it see any furhter without increasing the antenna size, at least on a mechanical radar.
But since you are adamant about Link-4C somehow being this wonder technology, provide actual proof for it.
Let’s say the APG-77 was not available for testing before 1998 and YF-22/23 were in 1989/90 when the contest between them happened and YF-22 took the contract. Also , Northrop-Grumman bought Westinghouse at 1996 , it can’t be before that anyway. Introduction date officially was around 2005 , so the better Radar was introduced 1 year before the last F-14Ds flight…
First AESAs started to get introduced by 2000, however they didn’t much the power and their only gain was that they couldn’t really get flooded . But against the power of APG-71 they wouldn’t flood it either.
Imagine , APG-71 might be the epitome of PDs and AESAs were just starting initially they were not “better” they just had more potential and we got to have better AESAs in 5 years period…
however, from 1991 and for nearly 15 years nothing could actually match APG-71.
