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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
