AFAIK all that is done locally (to share small signals, you first must be able to measure them)
Again, yes, at a higher level you can share the information through datalink to improve the quality of detection by e.g. eliminating ground clutter or other false targets or blind spots more effectively.
But this doesn’t increase the absolute detection range …
(Especially not with radars next to each other … The idea in multistatic radars is to spread them out and cover the area from different angles)
Sensors can measure below their noise floor though? it’s not generally useful outside of processing information like this, but it’s still possible. And since you can measure them you can send them. (You are correct though, for the examples I sent it is all done locally, but it could still be done from datalinked platforms assuming you had enough bandwidth.)
And this does very much increase the range, the example i sent increases maximum detection range by over 1.4x. That being said i do concede i’m not so sure of how well this would translate to a an multistatic equivalent for use as described of signal compounding, but given stuff like (the video i sent originally on camera networking), it is atleast theoretically possible, no?
In general the more i read the more i understand that the physical limitation of the antenna doesn’t mean that it “reduces” the maximum range…more likely reduces the accuracy.
However, if one F-14D is the transmitter and the other is the receiver , the radar system’s combined gain and geometry might result in an improved effective range.
Also, you can increase the effective aperture for the receiver radar system, which improves the system’s ability to detect distant targets.
So , yes 740km is a stretch …meaning that is the theoretical maximum for a big target, with optimum parameters in favor of the F-14s, but detecting other fighters would be more like 400km …or 350km depending the conditions.
Many if not all modern planes can do that, the thing is in F-14Ds case it had big gains. especially for its era.
the problem is that you wont be able to hold the optimal geometry between those jets, they arent staionary after all and trying to correct there movements in real time ontop of proccesing radar information seems not feasible.
Both of the Jets would have to accurately relay their possition to each other and their possition in relation to the target while also proccesing the radar returns.
If it was feasible every modern plattform would have that ability especially because you always have a wingman with you but we never see it mentioned anywhere not even in marketing or propaganda material.
All we got from Mikey was that DL between 2 F-14D doubles their radar range without any information on:
where are the Tomcats in relation to each other
do the Tomcats have the same distance to the target they try to detect
is the target already detected by another firendly asset (AWACS for example)
best i could find, regarding the radar and DL, in one of the videos he linked is the following quote from a F-14D pilot:
We were in Iraq and the Tanker was 190 miles away, i could see him on link16, i know exactly where he is and of course the awg-9 apg-70 isnt going to find him at that range
so we also know that the F-14D is using link16 and iam not sure if link16 has the bandwith to relay all the normal information it normaly does (position of Friendlies and position of Enemies found by friendly assets) and relaying the information i listed above ( their possition to each other and their possition in relation to the target), maybe they would even have to transmit some raw unprocsed data from the radar for something like MIMO.
This would most certainly exceed the bandwith of link 16 or at the least clog it with useless information for everyone that isnt one of the two Tomcats.
Ontop of that, the timing would be a really big issue because link16 is
Time-division multiple access-based which means nobody can just continuesly send information, but can only do it in small timed intervalls.
Yes, there are not clear in the capabilities … and they shouldn’t be in general, many things are still classified. He may can say that they could do , the plane isn’t even active now… but the “how” may still be classified.
Thing is… technically is possible. How exactly , what system gives the capability or under what tweaking may still be “not for the masses” material…
Pilots in general , if you see podcasts etc. spit things that we can translate them…very differently because our knowledge is very limited in how things operate.
Still, it’s good food food for thought an we are learning in the process…
Imagine i used chatGTP first time in my life!! And , it AVOIDS answering clearly unless i say very specific things…
For example… i asked about F-14D and AIM-9X. The initial answer was not it couldn’t operate it.
When i said pilots said they used them…
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, as the F-14D was transitioning toward retirement, some F-14D squadrons did experiment with the AIM-9X. This included integration with the AN/AAQ-25 Nite Hawk targeting pod and some testing of the missile’s capabilities with off-boresight targeting. However, these integrations were not universal and were mostly part of test or experimental programs rather than full operational deployment.
and
In the Iraq War (2003), some F-14Ds were observed carrying the AIM-9X for testing purposes, and reports suggest that pilots in these squadrons had the missile integrated for combat missions. However, this was more of a limited upgrade and was not the standard missile loadout for all F-14Ds.
While the AIM-9X was not a standard armament for the F-14D during its service, there were indeed test integrations and limited deployments of the missile towards the end of the F-14D’s service life. The integration was part of experimental upgrades, allowing for some F-14D units to carry and potentially use the AIM-9X, but it did not fully leverage the missile’s off-boresight capabilities due to the lack of JHMCS or other advanced avionics systems required for optimal use.
So, while some pilots did carry and use the AIM-9X during the F-14D’s final years, the integration was not as extensive as with other aircraft that were designed for it from the outset. It was a limited capability and not part of the aircraft’s primary armament during its service.
you should never ever use AI as a replacement for doing actual research because it likes to hallucinate to appease you What Are AI Hallucinations? | IBM
it tries to not give you a direct answer so it cannot be considered to be wrong asking ai on anything that isnt able to be know on a surface level is not a good idea because they often get details wrong
for example:
the Nite Hawk isnt the AN/AAQ-25 but the AN/AAS-38
why would you test the 9x on the F-14D in an active warzone?
that just dosent make any sense
test always happen in safty and not in an active war zone, simply because something could go wrong
imagine the F-14D has to engage someone but his missiles he carries, for testing, wont fire.
This can result in the loss of an Airframe and potentially the pilots.
AI does not replace research as (I hope) made clear
I mostly trying to find sources…
Well, clearly a pilot has said it in the open… but it’s not a source.
It doesn’t give… the answers roam around classified.
it is not that i dont belive the F-14D carried the 9x, i just wanted to show you that you shouldnt take a response from AI as fact because they often get stuff wrong
Reminds me of the AI response for “how many USB ports does my motherboard have” that used to tell people to “keep themselves safe” until google personally went and nuked that.
“AI”, or rather more accurately, Spicy autocorrect is a terrible source and an even worse researcher.
