Sorry didnt realized you were talking about V3.
But principle shouldnt be different because Sparrows requires hard lock, so unless V3 can hard lock multiple targets simultaneously it shouldnt be possible.
Then again why would you use Sparrows with V3? By the time V3 gets added we will probably recieve Aim-120C-7’s.
Just interested
None, I don’t Think the F-15 with APG-63V3 carries the Sparrow
AIM-120 AMRAAM capability only
F15A missing MRM Time-To-Go, which now only F15Cs have
They can’t make a new radar entirely for god sake.
Technically even the 63v1/ APG-70 has a dual lock mode, which allows for guidance of 2 sparrows at 2 targets at once. Unreliable and basically never used but possible. With AESA it is more than possible as you have multiple beams which can be focused in different directions. Unnecessary since you won’t be carrying SARHs, but possible.
F15s tested proper HMDs in the between 1986-1987. I knew HMS were tested during aimval/aceval but never proper HMDs.
And it was lighter(2.6 lbs) than the HGU-55P at 3.2 pounds.
Vertical Scan, Boresight and Supersearch were removed in favor of HMD Supersearch and HMD Boresight. It also removed the slaving between the radar and AIM9 seeker when in use, so you could fire an aim9 while the sparrow was doing its job on something else.
Basic Display:
SRM display;
IFF response:
STT display:
TWS display:
These were the results during 4 weeks, more kills and better exchange ratio
They actually do train Free For All lmao
The perfect recipe for a disaster but never happens
They also train 2v8s OCA and DCA. Shows how dire the situations they trained for. Outnumbered against waves of enemy fighters. Truly shows their skills and intensity they expected on western central europe.
This was in a simulator unfortunately if I recall correctly. MACS is the name of a simulator setup, though it doe show just how early they were put into testing
Can the F-15C we have in game carry the AIM-120D?
you are right.
I’m now wondering how expensive it would’ve been to do the wiring on an airframe. Weird how favorable results didn’t led on an earlier implementation on HMD
I don’t think the modifications would have been too invasive, though I do think cost is what prevented it from being integrated. By this time the writing is on the wall that the USSR isn’t going to be a threat in the foreseeable future, budgets are being to shrink, and the ATF program is well underway which is supposed to entirely replace the F-15. Combine that with the success without it in desert storm and further evidence in the rest of the 90s, it kind of makes sense why despite being a great tool, it kind of takes a back foot to ensuring radar upgrades aren’t sacrificed for an HMD in budget. Lots of testing done, but no widespread adoption. It takes a joint project to force the JHMCS over the finish line as well
Honestly I wouldn’t even mind not having HPRF TWS if they just made it interleaved with the current TWS
I saw more information about Agile Eye. In it was installed on real plane for flight tests in 90s. And also was modified several times and become Agile Eye Mk IV. More “FPS” to prevent headache and lighter to save necks. Then Navy joined the program. And it was tested on F/A-18C. After some more test in late 90s they decided that HMD is really cool. Program become JHMCS. Joint of USAF and Navy. Some more HMD technology acquired from Israel, added to Agile Eye technology, and JHMCS was ready in 2000s.
There were three HMS’s involved with AIMVAL;
The VTAS II(AVG-8); the existing system. The issue was that with the permittable G-loading of the Teen series of aircraft, going from 6~7 on the F-4s to 9G, the weight of the helmet assembly and Center of mass cause excessive neck strain and was difficult to keep on target under the higher loading conditions.
The VTAS III (AVG-8A); the prototype system that used a novel approach to offload a greater share of the weight to the airframe / cockpit sensors, and use passive lightweight reflectors; this while an improvement couldn’t quite mange to get the weight down sufficiently, even with a ultra lightweight Hemet & liner combo that traded off the requisite bump / ballistic protection to free up yet more weight. So it never went into production.
And a weight test dummy system that was used to further develop the advanced HGU-35/P flight tested by the F-5E to free up F-15s for actual testing, but ran in parallel.
Some useful documents include
The F-16 HMS study that was run concurrently; and provides an overview of the various systems on offer, and their pros and cons, and system placement for the F-16A/B, I don’t know if this was ever fitted or flight tested, but it was at least investigated.
Also claims that the A-7(E) was certified for the AVG-8 as well.
The AIMVAL AIM-95 CTU Aircraft interface
This goes into some detail about functionality that was conferred and how it works as well as indicating work performed for the F-14, F-15 & A-7 airframes to mount the AIM-95 during AIMVAL
And the overview of the Parallel trials of the SNC protoype HMS design and flight tests of the Dummy system on the F-15 and F-5E, and details the weight distribution issues.
What you gain is mostly range on targets tail on targets.
In war thunder in the apg-63 the “notch” speeds of MPRF and HPRF are different. But in real life it’s not the case, both MPRF and HPRF in RWS have the same “notch” filter at ~50 knots (IRL 48 knots) which you can increase manually with GMTI in the Radar control panel.
On another newer -34-1-1, the info is more detailed and with bit conditions and explanations.
FRAME store 0,1,2,3 have a notch of ±48 knots.
GMTI 0,1,2(frame stores) have a notch of ±65 knots when antenna is below +2° and ±48 knots when its above +2° (20 knot increase as mentioned in the 81’ manual)
GMTI 3 is ± 88 knots with data aging being 1 frame store.(+40 knots like the older manual).
So HPRF will do the job mostly, if you get low and expect close or tail on targets then MPRF is better. IF you have no idea, Interleaved is better. And if you are under 18km its far better to just use Supersearch with its 20x20° automatic lockon as to create a track file in war thudner you need 2 hits.
Nice to see the evolution of it, it wasn’t wasted after all
Vectored nozzles from the early 1970s, very seriously considered for the FX - McAir’s F-15.
One communist bloger posted this
