Cool
In no way do I want to argue or refute what is written from other studies. But 60 nm, yes. The targets didn’t light up immediately at that distance setting, but after a few seconds, whereas at 40 nm they went visible almost immediately.
The APG-63 radar was better than the AWG-9 in target tracking capability but had less range. By the time the F-15 pilot community learned how to fool the AWG-9 radar, the Tomcat started having a hard time in BVR.
I am attaching one picture with 90 km, which is 49 nm.
I’m not saying anything, just that reality is complicated.
You know what you are saying its nonsense. If you read that document, which you only skimmed through, there is no classified or any kind of sources quoted for the apg 63 in terms of range. You see several errors regarding radar details in it, look at beamwidth, 3°. Wrong, the BW is 2.5° on the apg 63.
12.9 kW peak power. I might believe it if its for whole radar set to account for cooling power etc but not the waveform.
Its a good document do have an idea of what is done inside and learn the differences with HPRF/MPRF but in no way it gives radar performance details.
Reality is not as simple as just skimming around a google result
And again, you haven’t quoted anything for those figures other than the picture that came up when you lltried to get radar info( we see the highlighted " F-15")
I would suggest to research more about it…
Specifically what I said on last post which is based on guess what? Measures data, document for the DoD by the IDA, and the radar equation
Hey, where did you get the BW value? I have been looking around to find the BW for the larger aircraft (F-15, Su-27), as in the game they are 3° and I believe it should be narrower, but I only found some tangential evidence for the Flanker.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eBYSZDAzruGG
On the -34 of 81’ and 87’(only got partial)
Its in the report on the beamwidth part but as you know, data coming from the bum is more reliable than the -34…
Where did you find for the su 27? I don’t recall seeing it on the sk manual. Found it vnm
My friend is a former F-15A pilot, instructor and Constant Peg program pilot and has a very good memory.
Therefore, 60 NM can live perfectly comfortably next to 77 or 80 nautical miles and not be wrong. I put the 90 km figure in the post not to defend the lower range, no need to defend that, but to show that there are more sources and you need to go deeper for the objective truth.
You may think I’m making things up, I don’t mind.
I have some nice studies on the APG-63 radar and its more modern versions. I wonder where you’re getting yours from? I’d be happy if you had something I don’t have to add to my collection.
bruh
I noticed an error with the F-15. The intake ducts are supposed to constantly move up and down with any change in AoA ( Especially at subsonic speeds).This is not in the videos.
Besides their main function of supplying air to the engine, their movement is very important for trim drag and airplane maneuverability.
It came to the game, so you don’t have to worry anymore!
Ahhh yeah. The just trust me bro, classic.
Post them then. I wonder what link of globalsecurity.org or ausworldpower.net you are gonna pull me out
If you check the links I put above you’ll see the what I used.
Ofc I know you are BSing bc you ask that despite me providing proof of what I say and not even bother reading them(which explicitly state which documents were used).
I don’t know your listed website addresses.
About the F-15 radars I have roughly this :
F-15 ANAPG-63 RADAR CASE STUDY
F-15 Radar set:
PSP COMPUTER PROGRAM DEVELOP
Radar BIT Data
THE APG-70 RADAR SIMULATION MODEL
FINAL REPORT
AUTOMATIC TARGET CUEING
AND OPERATOR PERFORMANCE
WITH ENHANCED APG-70
SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR
IMAGERY
apg63v2 evaluation
Robust Design for Six Sigma Manufacturability
Chuck Kelly and Ludwig Kachatorian
Hughes Aircraft
The Phenomenal APG-63_Brochure_001
Air-to-Air Radar Modes for the CP-140Maritime Patrol Aircraft
F-15 Avionics manuals :
Nonunclear weapons delivery, F-15
Manual for F-15 with APG-70 sites, 1989
I’ll look at your sources, I’ll be glad if I don’t have something. Thank you.
And this one, what is the ratio in range with the apg-66 for the same target size?
As I wrote, the numbers 77,80 and 60 can be next to each other just fine and everything will be fine. There’s no problem here.
Thats 1/3rd more range than what you claim and for a small RCS (2m^2)target! Its like saying SU27 radar can be downgraded to MIG 29 levels, 1/3rd more range for the same RCS target for the N001. A T I N Y point is that the the difference is 25km for the N001/N019 and for the APG 63 we are talking 20 TWENTY NAUTICAL MILES, ~37km. i would understand If we were talking about 1.3x of 10km or 15 but not of 100km or 150km. You are definitely BSing at this point.
If a former Eagle driver tells me he had a range of 60NM on an F-15A, I have no reason not to believe him. I don’t know if we understand each other. I agree with the higher figures, but I have no problem with the lower ones either.
Haven’t played the F-15 in a minute since my last post here. Has anything changed or been degraded?
Love the sparrow/f-15 radar update.
Nop, apg 63 is still based out of incorrect soviet info and intel coming out of his ass.
Sparrow still only guides on a CW signal and limited seeker range.