Do you know how the SNIFF radar mode worked ? Could it have provided a sneak attack on the target ?
According to ADA240170 from 1988 it was only tested in ground simulator
Happen to have that one? Given the quip in the source I found im actually inclined to believe it as that’s the kind of thing that I 100% see happening and being memorable. Doesn’t necessarily make it more valid but it does in my eyes.
Flight test were made in 1990s. Program was named Vista Sabre.
Period of performance says August 86 - October 87
1 Like
Oh I see, I read it wrong. When I saw MACS I thought they were McDonnell-Douglas owned test aircraft.
1 Like
Sniff is used to detect jamming and/or provide minimum transmission time to prevent detection.
Don’t know the exact details as it’s in the -1-1 -1 and its mostly an ECCM mode. It’s just passively receiving signal while scanning with no transmission to check if there’s any jamming or emitter.
It can also be forced to transmit for 2/1 bars then returns to just listen. But I’d say it provides a very short pulse( or a really short set of pulses to detect a target as it can do it during the transmit) during this transmit and then just listens for a relatively long time. The logic being that the jamming pod would detect this pulse(or series of pules), get triggered and send the a series signal with shifted frequency and phase to provide the jam the radar.
Hence sniffing
If by attack you mean firing stuff no.
1 Like
Would be better than the stock 15C which is more or less what we have in game with the 15A abomination that we currently have.
Having the V2 would give it a reason to exist more than just being a F-15A with more ordinance options.
Could also toss this in to make it truly unique.
1 Like
Not exactly. APG-63v1 is one of the most powerful mechanical scanned arrays in the world, still in active use even today as is its A2G brother the APG-70. It’s not the same as the base apg-63, which is still underperforming in game. Would an AESA be nice? Yes, but I don’t see that coming on the same patch as ARHs are being introduced.
I believe it will have HMD barring any gaijining, it will have better engines, BOL CMs, and potentially additional other QOL things compared to the F-15A like a TGP
And there are a myriad of intricacies between the F-16A and C’s radar systems with the C’s being vastly superior while in game they are identical.
I am not going to sugar coat it, the AN/APG-63v1 is going to be identical to the base AN/APG-63 given gaijin’s track record.
I should also note that gaijin has confirmed that the AAM-4 is coming which is a AESA ARH missile, either A the AAM-4 is going to be a gutted AIM-120 copy which is going to throw the entire Japanese community into a rage, or B they are going to copy the AESA tech they already have on the TOR and Pantsir onto the AAM-4, making it one of the most capable seekers in the game.
The tech already exists in game and should be arriving to air combat this patch as well, given the APG-63v1 and base are going to be identical I see the v2 being present as a strict net positive overall. That and if it would arrive I would not put it past gaijin to just take the base APG-63’s stats and give it the scan functions of the TOR or Pantsir’s AESA radars without changing anything else.
I will believe it when I see it, gaijin’s F-15A is an abomination currently, I expect nothing less from the F-15C as well.
The AAM-4 is not an AESA seeker, the AAM-4B is.
I have seen that both the base AAM-4 and 4B have at some point has an AESA seeker, with the B retaining the AESA seeker from the Type 12 SSM.
Even the files that are commonly cited from 2002 cites that the seeker was already being tested on the base AAM-4, with no mention of a second generation to begin with.
防衛庁技術研究本部五十年史 - 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション (ndl.go.jp)
TRDI50_10.pdf
You could probably utilize the WIDE Speedgate setting for the Sparrows to enable tracking, at the expense of bypassing the Speedgate entirely and solely tracking the strongest return, since i don’t think the F-15 retains the Aspect Knob that would be needed to provide simulated tracking data, that was present on the F-4 & F-14.
1 Like
Base AAM-4 does not use an AESA. Did not have the battery power in '99 for it.
Check the edit, the seeker was being tested on the base AAM-4 as early as 2002.
Being tested is not the same thing as entering service. And unless you are telling me that you speak Japanese, that literally says AAM-4(revised). 4(B) May be a translated naming.
3 Likes
Would not be the case as the SSM-1, also known as the Type 12 SSM, which is not the SSM-1B, which is the Type 90 SSM which was derived from the prior Type 88 SSM which the Type 12 was also developed from.
The “AAM-4 (revised)” is the AAM-4 with the “AAM-4B” being a different variant all together in the same vein as the SSM-1 (revised) is not equivalent to the SSM-1B.
Its not that. It’s the spectral spill from the MLC and the maximum unambiguous velocity. For example on MPRF at 10 kHz, with 9.5GHz carrier a 100m/s(194kt) closure will have a Fd of 6.3 kHz. Ideally you’d want the max doppler at 5 kHz due to ambiguity reasons. As the sparrows accelerates to mach 2.7. The doppler the seeker head will see will be like 32 kHz. Much much much higher than the PRF. In the doppler spectrum the seeker would not be able to tell if the target is closing at 900m/s or 110m/s.
And as the missile accelerates, the doppler frequency(being tracked inside the speedgate) will pass through 8 altitude lines, SLC’s and Main lobe clutters where track can be lost.
Then the beam of the horn is ±8° and ±20°. The main lobe takes up alot more doppler cells rather than a 2.5° beam.
Can anyone recognize this squadron name?