Here’s numbers
50-100% improvement in tracking range for domestic versions of APQ-109, APQ-120, APQ-153 and AWG-9 compared to their original versions.
It doesn’t specify the exact number for each radar, but that’s OK, you can go with the lowest number (50%) for the AWG-9.
And you can call it “AWG-9 National radar” since that’s what all the sources and airforce officials call it.
It would be great if we could get a fluent Persian speaker here, online available translators are not 100% accurate and if everything you claim is true this would be amazing.
Well I’m one of your resident “fluent Persian speakers” here :)
I’d make another bug report with this if it does state a 50% to 100% improvement in the radar and especially on the AWG-9, and perhaps a name change to National Radar or AWG-9 National Radar.
By the looks of things you are definitely cooking here lol
The problem is that they want US-style manuals and that’s just not how it works in Iran.
There is no such a thing as declassifying old documents …
So statements and interviews from officials and articles by people who are affiliated with the government and armed forces is the only thing that is (probably ever) gonna be available …
To be fair in the bug report you submitted they did acknowledge improvements but weren’t able to find what was improved. If this image you’ve sent is indeed true then that’s a step in the right direction and especially for tracking range.
The source even states “without referring” to which improvement cases correspond to which radar and these are just “in general” improvements:
There is nothing specific here to tie it to the AWG-9. Its just thrown into the mix with several other radars that had “improvements” but it explicitly does not state directly which ones received what.
Again, unfortunately this source does not meet the minimum requirement to prove anything spesifically on the AWG-9.
Once the minimum requirement has been met, you can submit a new report for review. You do not need to keep tagging us / messaging us every time you locate a new source when we have explained what’s required to pass the report.
We already know that the range 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.
So the worst case scenario would be that AWG-9 is the radar that got its range increased by 50%.
When this is confirmed by additional sources directly for the AWG-9, a report can be made. However this is a 3rd party secondary source (at best) that does not directly confirm the AWG-9 directly received this. It lists a bunch of radars and a bunch of upgrades, but does not directly attribute what upgrade to what radar.
When that’s confirmed directly by other sources, again a new report can be considered. As it stands, this source itself barely meets the secondary source requirement:
Two of which are needed.
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.
Seems Iranian F-14A doesn’t have stock AIM-54 for somehow
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZJpcg92Dr9OE
Is that actually the Fatter missile in the game client?
It is.
My asset viewer says so.
So… This is what I wanted to do when Iranian F-14A drops in the game
It would be awesome if pilot helmets are editable like userskin.
Does it starting from carrier in game?
