Also this brochure states 10 too
3 Likes
Well yeah but the fire controller on the radar can put up to 10 targets in TWS mode for AMRAAM deployment.
Tracking 10 targets in TWS does not automatically mean you can guide missiles at all of them. This is because you need accurate enough data for each target, ability to compute the required data link info for transmission, send that data to each missile (make sure they receive the data and that the data received belongs to each missile). All that has to be done while already doing other TWS stuff with a single antennae. Also, why do you need more that 6 for APG-68, you don’t even have that many missiles?
Here is the limitation of 1-2 missiles for N001VEP from the manufacturer’s website:
10 tracked, 1 targeted, can be increased to 2.
Here is a snippet from Forecast International (I know, secondary source, but using this to show you that data link limitation is a thing that exists. You can probably find more yourself with a deeper search.)
In any case, if you want to prove that APG-66/68 (or any other radar) can send info to more missiles with datalink, you will need to find a source that explicitly states that. Just “can track x targets” does not automatically imply it can guide missiles at all of them.
2 Likes
There is though, missile SARH guidance is done with HPRF modes only as that is the only one that can provide the required semi continuous or CWI (continuous wave, interrupted) signal.
I think you mean “Lt. Col. Michael Trujillo, District of Columbia ANG’s 113th Aerospace Control Alert Detachment commander, the unit responsible for the air defense of the national capital region”
What part of "(With the F-16’s previous APG-68 fire control radar), I had the ability to target up to two tracks, that’s it, At that point, my radar is completely saturated and has no more bandwidth. With the AESA radar, (without getting into) specific numbers, I can target more things than I can shoot.” don’t you understand?
Well, except that he’s not just a “random-ass pilot” but rather the commander of the unit responsible for the air defense of the US capital region.
Plus the interview is published on the official USAF website.
still a ramdom ass pilot lmao
war thunder never allowed pilot reports and never will, because of the appeal to authority fallacy
the guy doesnt even specify when he flew the F-16 nor what verson nor what version of the APG-68.
Yes, he doesn’t specify the aircraft’s tail number and paint condition either
Irrelevant
Unless you have a source that there is a difference between various versions of the APG-68 in this regard
Not to mention that we have the V5 and V7 in the game anyways … Which are not the most advanced variants.
Plus, even if we concede that e.g. APG-68 V9, contrary to older APG-68 variants, has the ability to shoot at 6 targets simultaneously, then that would also imply that the much older APG-66 shouldn’t have the ability to shoot at 6 targets simultaneously either.
not in game so irrelevent
Do you understand what “e.g.” means?
there is a difference why would they have different designations?
I dont have to report anything. It is you that is trying to report the APG-68 and an arbitrary blog post from a general and with no specific info from Westinghouse is not gonna suffice.
Not only that, but you don’t have anything useful to add to the discussion either … Except for “I like what Gaijin has invented in this instance, so good for me”
There are a million other things that can be improved in a radar than just the number of ARH missiles that can be guided simultaneously …
I think you mean USAF official news release
Can you drop a link, I wanna read it?
No way, is that semi-recessed AMRAAM?
1 Like
Yeah, they did it a little different for the F-16XL, they’re more apparent on the left one but still visible on the right
3 Likes
Hell yeah tomcat supremacy (The AWG-9 is still horridly nerfed ingame)
2 Likes