Aren’t they capable of combining signals for an increased effective range in the same manner of how they cancel out interference? ie. when two or more radars in a set are comparing information for a specific location, when cross comparing them to see if one is eronious or which signal is clearer; additionally doing additive comparisons to see if it would bring the result for a particular location above the noise floor? I know systems can use this kind of operation, certain methods of drone detection using camera arrays use the same kind of function to drastically increase range and accuracy.
I’m not entirely too knowledgeable on multi-static radars tbf, all i know of were some very recent prototypes which were specifically testing things like this, i have no idea if this is in the realm of currently in service stuff or not.
Edit: an example with cameras for aircraft detection
You are thinking at a higher level, yes you can combine the information to increase the quality of detection.
But at a lower level (circuit level), each radar is still limited by their signal amplifiers and comparators etc
I.e. for me and you to share information about what we hear, we first need to be able to individually hear that thing.
And that’s determined by the smallest signal that our ears and brains can detect and process …
I.e. the “minimum detectable signal” in the radar range equation:
Now, you can theoretically “sync” the two transmitters (their frequency, phase, PRF, where they are pointed at, …) to double your transmitted power, which in theory will (at most) double the power that each receiver receives.
But even this will in theory result in less than 19% of increase in range.
But they can still compare signals from below individual minimum detectable signals? Like, RF imaging can produce results like this where there’s background noise below what can be identified as targets, but is still usable to be added together with other images from other radars even in this form.
There are methods of signal processing which work from below the regular noise floor for target identification, stuff like radars adding up individual frequency returns over multiple beam passes.
The system itself is capable of a 460-mile (740 km) range, but the antenna design limits this to only 230 miles (370 km). Use of datalinked radar data allows two or more F-14Ds to operate the system at its maximum range. what does this mean?
ChatGPT said:
Got it! Let me break this down further and explain what that statement means in the context of the APG-71 radar system.
Key Concepts:
Theoretical vs. Practical Range
The APG-71 radar system is designed with the potential to detect targets at an ideal maximum range of 740 km (460 miles), under perfect conditions and with the radar’s full capability. This would be the radar’s theoretical range.
However, in real-world operational conditions, the design of the radar’s antenna limits its performance. Specifically, the PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) antenna used in the APG-71 reduces the effective range to around 230 miles (370 km) for normal operation. So, even though the radar could theoretically detect targets at 740 km, its antenna design doesn’t allow it to achieve that range on its own.
Antenna Design Limitation
Antenna design directly impacts the radar’s ability to send and receive signals over long distances. The APG-71’s antenna is designed for certain performance characteristics, but it’s not optimized to exploit the full theoretical range of the radar system. This design constraint means that, under normal operating conditions, it can only detect targets up to 230 miles (370 km) away, which is still impressive but less than the radar’s theoretical maximum.
Datalinked Radar Data
Datalinks like Link 16 allow multiple aircraft to share radar data in real-time. In the case of two F-14Ds operating together, datalinked radar data enables the aircraft to combine their radar capabilities.
One F-14D might detect a target at the full 740 km range using its radar.
It can then share that information with the second F-14D over the datalink.
The second F-14D can then engage the target or continue tracking it using the data received from the first aircraft, even though its own radar might not be able to detect the target at that long range.
Coordinated Operation Between Aircraft
When two or more F-14Ds are linked via datalink, they effectively expand their radar coverage. They are no longer limited by the range of a single radar system. The combined radar coverage allows them to achieve the maximum theoretical range of 740 km because they are both sharing data, tracking the same target, and providing information back and forth.In other words:
Aircraft 1 detects a target at 740 km.
It shares this information with Aircraft 2, which can then also track and engage the target, even though Aircraft 2’s radar is limited to 370 km under normal conditions.This networked radar operation ensures that the F-14Ds can effectively operate at the radar’s full capability (740 km), even though individual radar systems are limited by their antenna designs.
The Takeaway:
Without datalink: The APG-71 radar can typically detect targets at about 370 km (230 miles) due to its antenna design.
With datalink: If multiple F-14Ds are operating together, they can share radar data and effectively extend their combined detection range to the radar’s theoretical 740 km (460 miles). This is possible because the aircraft can share data and track targets beyond the range of a single radar system.
In Summary:
The APG-71 radar itself can theoretically reach 740 km, but in practice, its antenna design limits its range to 370 km.
By using datalinks, two or more F-14Ds can share radar data and effectively combine their radar capabilities to operate as a coordinated system, allowing them to achieve the radar’s full 740 km detection range.
by chatGTP…
I think the way we think it is wrong. It’s much simpler by that explanation. I don’t know how much accurate is chatGTP though…
But it makes sense.
I think a decent way to explain it would be that this does not increased range, but “effective range”.
A radar can have a 200km instrumented range, but it can detect a 1m^2 target at let’s say 160km. In case of multiple radars working at once, there is a higher chance of detecting said target, as if one of the radars pickup it, even if it is a small signature, but it was not there, the other will also pay attention to that place, and due to for example the difference in places they are, they might pick it up. This will not double the range tho. Increase will be there, but not great.
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
