Doubtful, the AN/APG-73 Phase 2 / RSP II is directly quoted at having 10 weapons engagement channels with an additional 2 being added by the Phase 2 / RSP II upgrade.
The AN/APG-65 and subsequent 73 series are second to none for their generation beyond the F-15’s radar and vastly outperform the F-16’s radars which were limited by installed space.
Here are my citation snippets, they should be in order from top to bottom (might be slightly mixed up) according to the citations in the original report if you need them.
Hence my emphasis on the “baseline” APG-65, and my report above on the APG-73 having the capability to track 24 targets.
For the “baseline” APG-65 engaging 8 targets simultaneously seems a bit much when the radar can only track 10 targets in total and display only 8.
But for APG-73 it seems reasonable as it can track 24 targets …
Keep in mind that the “quality” of track needed for weapon employment is higher than what is needed for “just looking at them”.
That’s why aircraft usually can “engage” only a fraction of the number of targets that they can “track”.
Now IRL this might be more of an operational guideline than a hard limit, but just like many other things the game should be consistent and treat various aircrafts the same way …
I just compared the thrust at 0 km/h with the mass of the empty aircraft and came up with the following numbers:
Am I correct in understanding that you think that the even F-18A has a better thrust to weight rating than the F-16 block 50, F-15C and MiG-29A?
Then the question is, if the F-18A’s thrust-to-weight ratio was fine, then why did they make the 402 engine at all?
It seems to me that someone has absolutely no logical thinking.
Simply if you look up all the reference books, you will see that the thrust of the F-18A GE400 is indicated as 7260 kgf, and the RD-33 as 8300 kgf, and for example the F-16C GE129 as 13400 kgf. So you want to say that in all the literature for military aircrafts (like Jane’s All Worlds Aircrafts or Osprey Combat Aircraft series etc), the static thrust of the hornet’s engine installed on the aircraft is indicated, while for other aircraft (F-15, F-16, Mig-29 etc.) the thrust is indicated as the rig thrust? What did the Hornet do to deserve such uniqueness and privileges?
But TF30 has only 7994 kgf (the figure differs from that given in the document) static thrust compared to 7260 kgf (the figure matches the document) of GE400 in the WT
Aircraft engines need to be modelled and compared under equal conditions based on the same approach, and not as it’s done here.
P.S. The Su-27 in the game also does not have such big static thrust losses as other planes. Incomprehensible thrust curves, because of this it flies more than 1500 km/h near the ground, although in reality this figure should be around 1400 km/h.
and M2000C seems to have a lossless thrust in the game too. Now I’m not surprised why this miracle can go 1500+ km/h at low afterburner (zone 1- zone 2) and break its wings. facepalm.
What is the point of this write up except to complain about something that is correctly implemented already?
You’re complaining that the F-18 has a high empty T/W ratio in spite of the fact that the thrust is based on primary source data and so is the MiG-29s? Why are you surprised a carrier fighter has better empty T/W than the MiG-29, who has a T/W in excess of 2:1 at speed?
Clearly y’all weren’t listening when I made these observations about how potent the F-18 is prior to its’ addition.
I will add that you are right, the Su-27 overperforms in thrust. HOWEVER, the problem is that they overdo it on the drag as well… so it actually underperforms significantly in the game.
The question was about the fact that the documents indicate that the F-14A with TF-30 on afterburner should be 25% more powerful than the Hornet. This is not in the game.
And also, show this video to the F-15 or F-16 community on the F-16.net forum and watch how they laugh at you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ55zG6bSJY
The suggestion thread on the F-18C has a lot of sources for the BOL pod testing, but I’ve only managed to find the cover pages of only a few of them (listed in the report), so additional help would be great.
