Yes, it is 9G
3 Likes
9*1.5=13.5
2 Likes
Update on the progress of a potential F-15 HMD suggestion, found more supporting evidence if people want to follow along or help out.
Found more data on the D-1 Type Captive Test Unit, (AIM-95 surrogate), I think i should have enough to prove that Honeywell HMS was tested with the F-15.
Excerpt is from *in progress* DM's with Gunjob.
Did find this on the AIM-95 surrogate (D1 type Captive Test Unit) that was used during the testing
But I think it’s a bit ambiguous as it only directly mentions the AN/AVG-8 w/ F-14A directly[PDF page #8], though would theoretically be supported by the above excerpt.
Though there is detailed schematics for an F-15[PDF page #15 &-24] (and A-7, of which a have another primary source that confirms that the A-7 was HMS certified; the F-16 HMS study [PDF page #18]) to be fitted with the CTU, so it would follow that similar capability ?may? have been fitted to support the D-1 type seeker trials on the F-15, though as both the F-14A and A-7E are USN airframes, and the F-15 a USAF there is still some doubt, at least in my mind.
6 Likes
Do you want the overload increased or not? I’m confused now
1 Like
Here’s something from AIMVAL stating F15 (&F14) pilots used VTAS
https://web.archive.org/web/20120224090901/http://combatace.com/blog/5/entry-33-acevalaimval-lessons-learned/
3 Likes
Well looks like random numbers were just thrown at the code and named the file APG-63 for the DEV lmao.
- Ranges
-
Ingame
-
RWS HPRF - 60km for a 3m^2 target with a 160km detection limit.
-
VS HPRF - 70km for a 3m^2 target with 150km detection limit
-
MPRF- 50km for 5m^2 target with a 75km limit (Same range as F16 APG66 ingame)
-
-
In real life
-
RWS HPRF - 142km for 2m^2 target
-
VS HPRF - Higher than RWS due to less processing required to declare a hit
-
MPRF - This is where it gets tricky but I’d say 1/2 of RWS HPRF at most.
-
Hell even 1974 tests of a Pre IOC PRE-PSP APG63 TF-15A showed higher ranges than ingame LMFAO. 60km =~32Nautical miles.
I know many here dont know how this translates graphically so see it yourself, the black line is ingame max locking range which there isn’t one till 160nautical miles.
Horizontal line is Radar Cross Section in m^2 and vertical is Distance in Kilometers
-
Beamwidth
In game - 3°
In Real life - 2.5°
-
MODES
The 6°x6° ACM mode ingame is not a real thing, it doesn’t exist IRL.The 4 acm modes are
-
SuperSearch - 20°x20° automatic lock on 6 bar in MED PRF with not range limit for lock on.
-
Boresight - 500ft to 10N.M, boresights the antenna to the front. 4° circle diameter zone
-
Vertical Scan - in a 2 bar azimuth scan 7.5° in azimuth and from +5° to +45° from the fuselage reference line. Later APG-63s added 10° in verrtical, therefore upgraded to +5° to 55°
-
Gun Scan - 60° x 20° 6bar MED PRF scan.
-
-
Floodmode
This is a special thing of this plane. ITs a antenna thats just behind the main antenna, shaped as horn.
When you fire a sparrow, it guides on the main PD signal, but as the Beam Width is small, if the missile goes leads too much it will no longer be able to receive the main signal which it uses to compare the receiving signal from the target for DOPPLER and RANGING purposes. So a small antenna(Null Filling Horn) with a much lower gain( higher azimuth and elevation coverage) repeats the signal so the sparrow can follow the target.
If Track is lost or extrapoliating position(coasting) while guiding a missile ( or you fire while tracking in MPRF and the radar isn’t able to fully switch to HPRF track after 0.5s ) the Flood Horn activates and radiates the same HPRF signal to provide illumination TILL the last Time-To-Impact counter goes to 0 . Due to the lower gain, the power output/m^2 is degraded as range is effective around 8 nautical miles depending on target size.
- AIM-7F/M sparrow
It guides on the same HPRF waveform used for tracking NOT in CW. Therefore it gives the seeker the ability to lock at higher ranges**<<more power(5kW peak - 2.5kW at 50% duty ratio) output and lower beamwidth that a separate CW illuminator(200 watt)>>** and NO RWR warning. Signal is not range gated but coarse range to target is known, signal is linearly frequency modulated.
This is the CW transmitter of the APG-63 ingame
The radar switches to HPRF when launch is executed to give track information
More seeker range using PD, almost 40 nautical miles for a m^2 target. Probably a M sparrow which switched lots of solid state with just Digital signal processing reducing the signal loss.
I rose this issue a while ago, and you’ve got 2 planes in several nations now that just use this method.
Et voilà @k_stepanovich, vous avez presque tout maintenant
18 Likes
No I couldn’t find anything about it on what I have atm
1 Like
Unfortunate. Worth the try though. Thanks.
No, that was just the TF-15A. 1974 preproduction for testing
I already have an article, I was just looking for stronger supporting evidence of it since I’m yet to find any direct evidence that F-15 mounted the HMS, only circumstantial though with two primary and two secondary that support its at least a non-Zero change since they are practically a paired system for worthwhile HOBS tests.
2 Likes
It’s probably based off the 1974 TF-15A SAC, [PDF page #5] which claims 7.33G is the Design Limit Load Factor, not the Structural Limit.
1 Like
Yeah, also from the TF manual you see the limit
ON normal you see it but its without OWS( the warning voice) the limit to keep was 7.3Gs
Not structural at all
2 Likes
Who cares about the F-15 flight model lol. Its a 1972 era jet with missiles made in the 70s against a Jet made in 1985 with 6 missiles made from the 1990s.
Its Dead on Arrival. 4 Aim7M versus 6 R-27ERs? Its not even a contest. Just a Russian bias rigged carnival game. I told you long ago that the F-15 would be the F-15A Early with the flight model of a concrete brick, a 1960s microwave for a radar with incomplete modes, and missiles from 1970. I called this years ago. Which is why im not even surprised or upset. I just see it for what it is…
…A rigged Russian bias carnival game.
9 Likes
Fact check mostly false:
AIM-9M is from 1982 :P
But seriously, yeah it just isn’t going to be competitive, it’s a worse F16 that trades two IR missiles for two bad SARH missiles.
1 Like
Su-27 flew in '77 a year after the F-15 entered service
1 Like
I do. So what if it does get bodied in a 1 circle and lags behind in weaponry? I don’t care about having the most powerful plane. I care about having a plane that feels like an F-15, and the current one does not. Fixing the structural integrity would help with that.
Also the more I fly it, the more I feel like it’s missing engine power somehow. Stock it has 55.4kN dry and 78.6kN with afterburner, both per engine. I don’t know what it is currently in a spaded form, but if it is less than 65.2kN dry and 100.5kN with afterburner this might be an actual issue. If not I’m just imagining things and Boeing is lying about flying Mach in a vertical. And I know it couldn’t do that anyways after a certain altitude, but not being able to at all seems weird to me.
10 Likes
I’ll test it when I’m able to, but I’m fairly certain people are going to think it’s less impressive than it was in their head. Part of the reason for this is the overperforming F-16 FM.
I’ve always been saying the F-15 will be a direct side-grade to the F-14 as well.
1 Like
In my opinion, if F-15J gets AAM-3, it would only be fair for the F-15A to get either AIM-95, or AIM-7P (or both since US made the damn aircraft)
1 Like
I do think instantaneus turn is underperforming.
I’m only getting lower values than the maximum usable in the SAC.
Spoiler
On other news the underperforming wing strenght has already been reported.
10 Likes