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.
Them simply being in proximity isn’t enough. They have be be connected through datalink. From there, the RIO configures the connection.
The AN/APG-66 to APG-66 V2 achieves greater range through digital signal processing, not just by increasing antenna size. Radar range can be extended with technology, not only by enlarging the antenna.
To a degree, It more so that because you already know where to look the radar doesn’t need to make concessions or try to scan there are two generic limits for detection;
There needs to be sufficient signal returning to the antenna to be discriminated from Noise( this isn’t solely power based as phase and coherence could also be used to assist with noise rejection, and lower the floor but are not really quantifiable unless you had an example in front of us ).
And due to the use of a Pulsed waveform for range determination, the Repetition frequency / schema effectively provides an upper bound on time of flight after which there is ambiguity introduced as to which sent pulse corresponds to the return as a contact’s material / shape properties are not known beforehand.
Additionally depending on the Antenna and it’s mechanization angular determination could be suspended to increase the duty cycle (similarly ESA’s could increase the number of Zones / Transmit modules available to the tasking so increase power available at the expense of other tasks) and therefore effective radiated power, to help bring the return out of the noise.
