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?
it says AF-241
SSM-1 is the Type 88 surface-to-ship missile. And SSM-1B is the Type 90 ship-to-ship missile, a ship-oriented version of SSM-1 (Type 88). 12SSM is the Type 12 surface-to-ship missile, a successor, not a derivative, of Type 88 with added vertical launch, GPS guidance, etc.
These are a family of anti-ship missiles. The naming of the anti-air missiles has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The image you showed does not say that the AAM-4 is an AESA radar, it is just a follow-up in the prototyping of the Ka-band seeker, i.e., the reduction of production costs to the AAM-4, AAM-4(改), and SSM-1(改).
The AAM-4(改) and SSM-1(改) in the image are provisional names for the AAM-4B and 12SSM under development.
予算執行事前審査等調書
See page 14 of this site.
It says, “Improvements from AAM-4,” such as “increased transmission power due to active phased array antennas".
2 Likes
From what I understand AAM-4 (improved) was the development name for AAM-4B. The AAM-4 testbed with SSM-1 (improved) seeker can be considered a different missile from the AAM-4B since it differs from the final production version, but that does not mean the basic AAM-4 is an AESA missile or we will get AESA missiles this update.
It shouldn’t matter anyways though since AAM-4 is already among the very best of the missiles announced with long range, high speed, good agility and possible RWR stealth if Gaijin implements it and all of that only at the cost of being heavy and limited to 4 (half of the amount of AMRAAMS an F-15 could carry)
Range? Scan rate? Gimbal limits?
Like APG-70,
…System operation
A/A modes remain the same as APG-70 radar
actually it was the F-2
where is that Document from?
Can you DM me the link?
Done.
1 Like
Incorrect, the first F-15C equipped with the AN/APG-63v2 entered service in 1999 at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, one year before the F-2 entered service in 2000, making the F-15C the first production fighter equipped with an AESA radar.
Correct, thank you for re-iterating my statement, the SSM-1B is not the Type 12 as I have already stated.
And this is a family of AAMs sharing the same naming conventions.
It flat out states that the AAM-4 is being tested with a prototype Ka-Band AESA seeker.
I have yet to see proof of such.
- seeker emits more because it is an AESA seeker, imagine my shock that the AESA radar tested on the AAM-4 has superior emission power to the original AAM-4 seeker when used in a future variant, I dont see how this refutes my claim.
APG-63 V2
1 Like
The 39worst! 391st Bold Tigers, out of Mountain Home, Idaho.
Seems a bit hair splitting but the F-2 had its first flight with AESA in 1995. Sure it’s not the first production unit (though it was later converted IIRC), but it’s still operational on the aircraft it was supposed to be mounted on.
1 Like
Couldn’t a similar claim be made since the F-2 isn’t a clean sheet design but a variant of an existing one.
I’d have to look it up, but I thought F-2 narrowly beat the F-22 or something, in terms of AESA first flight.
First flight is not in service, the F-15C was in service with the US Air force with the AN/APG-63v2 in 1999, the F-2 only entered service in 2000, if we want to go by testing the AN/APG-63v2 was tested after the AN/APG-63 base model order ended in 1986, being put on a F-15 for testing for the first time in 1988.
So for first flight or actual in service date the AN/APG-63v2 is still ahead of the F-2.
Do you have the link for that one? Been trying to find it for a while