Well the JH-7A is as-good as the F-5E at energy retention, which for high-BR where it can pull up to 12Gs instead of the 8 - 9 of F-5E at 1000+ kph makes the JH-7A among the best 12.3s in the game.
Obviously JH-7A is worse than the under-BR’d F-16A.
Once I stopped bringing bombs and I brought a fighter fuel load, it was easy to fly.
That doesn’t change anything, the radar is the problem not the missile. It can’t guide ANY SARH missiles. This includes every variant of the Sparrow.
F/M does not require CW
It does, this is the exact reason that missile was removed from this aircraft over a year or so ago.
AIM-7F/M is able to guide with PDILL instead of CW, but PDILL requires HPRF mode. And the AN/APG-76 does not have air-to-air HPRF mode.
These are just some of the reasons AIM-7 was removed from Kurnass 2000, there are many others.
Source for that?
Stage 1 I see…
Which one are you talking about?
Source for PDILL requiring HPRF, or source for APG-76 only having MPRF mode?
AIM-7F SPARROW missile compatibility is the other major factor in determining transmitter power requirements. On earlier aircraft (F-4) this compatibility was provided by the addition of a separate CW illuminator. The F-15 proved the feasibility of providing SPARROW compatibility using the high PRF pulse doppler waveform negating the need for a separate transmitter with its inherent reduction in system reliability. This concept has been adopted on the F/A-18. High PRF systems typically operated at 40-50% duty factors to meet detection range and missile requirements. The APG-65 uses range gating techniques which provide an equivalent capability but operate at a reduced duty factor (-33%) and thus provide resultant increase in reliability in range while search mode.
The air-to-air mode of this radar system is a medium PRF search and track capability operating at ranges out to 75 km (40 nmi) over antenna coverages up to of +/-60 degrees in azimuth and +/-30 degrees in elevation. Range and search scan sector coverages are operator selectable and hand-control steerable. Ground moving target rejection is also provided, with 20 & 30 m/s (35 and 55 kt) limits. selectable. This mode has been demonstrated to detect and track low flying aircraft under both platform. and target aircraft high G maneuvering conditions.
The APG-76 is more advanced and more powerful than either APG-65 or 63. Also there’s nothing in those documents saying AIM-7F/M weren’t compatible with it.
Brother… we still on stage 1? He just gave you all the relevant documentation and you’re still denying it? He literally just told you that it can’t use it and explained why…
And yet the ADF F-16s use sparrows in MPRF modes. The second document states that APG-76 used MPRF for air to air STT functions. It’s also missing TWS. But reports related to this radar are closed with a “No further improvements will be made.” I’m of course not surprised, but just informing you that there is no indication, and much further still, absolutely no proof to even hint that APG-76 could not guide Sparrows.
‘X performs better than Y or Z, so it must have that feature’ is a completely wrong assumption. They are different radars and are configured based on their specific needs.
Already I have brought material that mentions that the AIM-7F/M needs HPRF mode to be guided without CW, and that the APG-76 only has air-to-air MPRF mode. Do you think the two are unrelated?
Here’s a quick explanation to make it easier for you to understand.
Do you understand now?
Another incorrect comparison, the APG-66 mounted on the F-16A ADF has an additional CW illuminator to guide the AIM-7.
You are mistaking the F-16C and F-16A ADF.
And the reason the F-16C can guide AIM-7 in MPRF mode is because they can operate in HPRF and MRPF simultaneously using their time-splitting capability.
I also previously reported in an internal report that AIM-7 should only be able to be guided in HPRF mode, but the developers have commented that they are able to guide AIM-7 from MPRF mode to HPRF using the time- splitting capability, referring to N019 for example.
Another twist, that answer was inappropriately moved from developer comments to a answer to a user report.
Existing user reports were linked to an internal report that originally existed, and the internal report had additional content that was different from what was in the user report.
However, these were issues that were not considered bugs at the time, which resulted in the answer “No further improvements will be done.” In the process, the comment was inappropriately moved to a answer to a user report.
Regarding missing new features being added to the game, yes, it is a bug, and some reports still exist.
