When it gives a range rather than just one number and says by 50% to 100% obviously it’s referring to any radar from those 4 that got its range increased.
If let’s say AWG-9 had its range increased by 25%, then the source with the number wouldn’t say by 50% to 100%, it would rather say by 25% to 100%. (and again, from those official sources we already know that AWG-9 had range increase)
Keep in mind that the source with the number is the most recent, so it’s definitely taking AWG-9 into account.
Generally speaking you’ll need two secondary sources for a bug report to be acknowledged, since this is considered a secondary source you’ll need another one. Try to find another source stating a similar thing and report it and it will probably be accepted.
To play devil’s advocate: the image Google translates as:
During the past three decades, these programs include repairing and setting up defective radars, making required parts for all types of radars, improving the performance of radars and even adding new capabilities to them, building subsystems used in radars with new technologies, and replacing radar components. The basic air available on different fighters will be built with internal components and finally the construction of new radar samples. These radars include the types of 109-APQ of the F-4, 153-APQ of the F-5E, 120-APQ of the F-4, and 9-AWG of the F-14. Some of the achievements of these improvements, in general and without referring to the corresponding case of the mentioned radars, include the following: increasing the detection range by several times in some cases, increasing the tracking range by 50 to 100%, increasing the ability to separate targets close to each other, adding a target indicating mode Airborne mobile, making it possible to identify flying targets at low altitude and creating the ability Angular tracking
So it lists a bunch of radars and a bunch of improvements, without saying which radars had which improvements. You’ve taken “increasing the tracking range by 50 to 100%” to mean that every radar had a range improvement with the smallest improvement being 50% and the largest improvement 100%, but that isn’t necessarily the case.
If for example the APQ-153 received a 100% range improvement and the APQ-120 received a 50% range improvement, while the APQ-109 & AWG-9 received no range improvement (instead getting other improvements like tracking close together targets) then the passage would still be correct.
We already know that the range of AWG-9 was extended from the other sources (which are official statements by the top/high ranking officials of the airforce), that don’t specify by how much.
Keep in mind that the source with the number is the most recent, so it’s definitely taking AWG-9 into account.
From what I could find, Fater (pronounced like “father” but with t instead of th in the middle) project, while started with the goal of building a new IR AAM, the goal was eventually changed into refurbishing the AIM-9J/Ps that were already in stock.
Possibly replacing the electronics with digital ones like what apparently been done for the AGM-65s that were in stock:
If I interpret this correct, because they also call their ground based and some AWACS national radar. This means the RADAR was upgraded to a digital system with DATALINK. Like the F18 etc which are able to imprint data from land, ship, air, and wingman based readings into your data.
This would be absolutely game changing and wonderful to see in game honestly. Data feed of other radars for more battlefield awareness is something that this game should get.
