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
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
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.
This from above comes from the 81’ -34. I assume the exact details comes from the -34-1-1-1 of this year.
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.
2 Likes
Nice to see the evolution of it, it wasn’t wasted after all
1 Like
Vectored nozzles from the early 1970s, very seriously considered for the FX - McAir’s F-15.
1 Like
One communist bloger posted this
wot
Leaked modern saudi F-15s manuals
here, or just the web?
in one telegram channel
In communist’s tg channel
well damn, now im curious how you guys know
Just following his TG