yes ill get with spacenavy and figure it out. Im currently at Uni rn so im not at my PC.
Yeah but not the Blk50 which can tws 6 Aim-120s i think
Sir i think you are going the wrong way here , the radar of F-14B was still AWG-9 and with Aim-54C ,One of the uses was destroying anti ship missiles that are attacking the naval force . the power output was also high to give the missile of the A family , good signal return , if you are going to say it does not matter , then can you turn my flashlight into a 300km range radar?
Ummm my brain started huring when i read this. What are you try to say?
1 Like
Thanks, this is what I was looking for. No one else on this forum seems to be able to back up assertions right off the bat.
In that case, as @_Fantom2451 mentioned it will be quite hard for them to fix overnight.
Non-maneuvering target.
Keeping track of multiple maneuvering targets in TWS requires high slew rate which the AWG-9 does not have. It’s also not a PESA.
Aim-54C had another employment other than shooting aircraft , to shoot down cruise missiles or sea skimming missiles . like P-120 or unlikely P-270
even in Warthunder if you change the radar scan pattern , the radar scans 2 times(and more) per second .
And instead of pausing on targets it just scans right past and immediately transmits the data 🤷♂️ updates are too fast
you just said it is too slow , now you say it is too fast ?
Yes, in real life it’s too slow, in-game TWS updates are too fast. What’s the disconnect?
I don’t see you disproving the slewing speed or update speed before EVER , do you have a sauce to back it u?p
Just something I’ve heard discussed by pilots in the past, explained well in other forums as well. I’d have reported it, but I lack any good documentation on the radar. Outsider’s view describes the 2 second sweep but does not clarify if that is for 40 or 20 degree scan angle.
Maneuvering targets change gate bins quickly and can cause the AWG-9 to lose track because it tries to predict where the target will be and correlates new returns vs the expected return (TWS). If a return does not show up within limits of where it is expected it will “coast” a track. If the target maneuvered hard enough to be out of gate limits then it shows up as a new target in the new position while the old target file is coasted and on the TID the RIO will see two targets. After a few seconds the AWG-9 gives up on the target file coasting and drops the track, but that track is simply lost and will not move to the nearby track of the same physical target.
View topic - Spurts on YouTube - Flying in DCS • F-16.net
I can look for F-16 documentation later, I asked and apparently there is an open internal report proving block 10s had TWS modes like the block 15s, but neither were particularly good at keeping track on maneuvering targets even for AMRAAM when that was integrated. If that’s the case I would also assume there were similar issues with the AWG-9… maybe @MaMoran20 has more information on why TWS would have trouble before PESA and newer radars came out.
It is because the (early) radars only know a target’s relative position and velocity, so when it predicts the next position it ends up way off because it can’t compensate for the velocity’s rate of change (would probably require 3 passes instead of 2 to compute). So, the analog gimballed radars simply couldn’t scan fast enough to update their target data within a reasonable time frame. And the computers of the time didn’t have the capability to quickly and reliably account/correct for these deviations.
I believe AWG-9 pauses on each TWS tracked target briefly to determine necessary information and send it via datalink
@MiG_23M So in this video the person did not update guidance for all their missiles, just one way too late. To properly use multi-launch Phoenixes in game, the pilot would have to cycle through targets they fired at in TWS continuously until the missiles obtain the lock themselves. Many F-14 pilots do not “support” their missiles all the way to the target, they rely too heavily on the inertial guidance. If properly supported, Pheonixes are suprisingly accurate and still have enough energy for one strong pull if fired in optimal conditions. My typical problems are usually people being so close to the ground that it makes them near useless.
Worth testing in that case.
BTW these are , AWG-9 and APG-71 ,
why they share designs ?