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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I find it funny how we need to come up with some kind of “evidence” of the capability of the Eagle, yet one cannot see any evidence of the capability given to the SU27/Mig29/Mig23 etc… The MiG23 for instance has an in-game capability that is well…based on no facts at all. IRL it was in no way a maneuverable as it’s airframe was not capable of much G-loading. And this is from pilots who flew such aircraft for the US DoD in the ‘Red Eagle’ squadron based in Tonopah, flying as aggressors during Red Flag exercises. A USAF General was killed in one during a flight in one because he disregarded the procedures for flying the aircraft.
Still can’t get Aim7M’s to properly guide on anything in about 1 in 5 launches. They just fly off to the side and detonate. Not having TWS mode in APG63 is just Gaijin working their ‘balance’ for the game.
They flew models with no spare parts that already were in poor shape. They were not top of the line models.
Some of these test pilots actually said some bizarre stuff that should very much discredit them entirely such as “the Gsh can fire NATO 20mm rounds”…
Dutch F-16 test pilots who flew the MiG-23MLD for example, thought it was very much capable or on par with the F-16s in many ways.
MiG-23MLAs from Libya put up quite a fierce dogfight against some F-14s unexpectedly.
The Soviet Union simply didn’t train their pilots very well for BFM at the time. They stuck to basic ground guided towards targets for intercept tactics.
Of course, in War Thunder the ‘G’ limits are not a concern as the aircraft doesn’t have to last a long time. The pilots aren’t concerned with flatspins either… so can push the wings all the way forward as well. These are advantages afforded to us only because it is a game … but not entirely impossible for real life either. On the flip side, real world F-15s weren’t flown with the 102% thrust trim as they are given in-game… The F-16 is limited to 25 degrees AoA (not 40+ like it has in-game)… And the F-14 had an operational G limit of less than 8 as well…
I hear your complaints … but they are one-sided and blind to the fact that America has the same advantages.
To some degree, but its far less blatant, and there is also numerous little things that could be done.
Since this topic is for the F-15, I’ll be specific.
Add additional functionality / adjust the Radar’s capabilities to be in line with MSIP I configured Airframes, as Flares are already present, also replicating modes / functionality like Super Search would be nice to have.
AIM-95, fairly similar to the R-73 & SRAAM / Taildog (once it’s fixed)
AN/AVG-8B (VTAS III) HMS for the F-15A, send to 12.7 alongside all of the other recent additions
GPU-5/A x3 on CL & wing station(s)
CBU-100 & -87, etc.
But the biggest issue with the F-15 is that it came late, it would have been a far better lead in aircraft to the Teen series than the F-14A, and with an actually introductory config (no CM, AIM-9J / -9P / -9L, AIM-7F at best) would have probably been pretty balanced, since no flares vs R-60M / R-24T doesn’t seem so bad.
