there is a change , how can on F-14 guild 6 missiles at the same time ? with different channels.
for missiles that use radio command also advanced RWRs will detect the command pulses such as Pansir and Roland and Tanguska , only ADATS can not be detected without MAW and that is because it is laser guided
I am 99.99% sure you’re wrong there chief. Datalink communication is not detectable by RWR. That’s like saying RWR detects VHF radio, the energy something like an AWG-9 outputs (10 kW according to google) is several orders of magnitude higher than the rather pedestrian by comparison 5-50W a radio set puts out
It depends quite how advanced your RWR is. The Tornado RWR was very advanced for the time and could detect datalink signals (along with all sorts of other stuff). Here’s an excerpt from the (many pages long) list of emitters it can identify:
1 Like
Does anyone know what radar band the AIM-54 is supposed to operate in? I’ve heard that the 54 would fall within the J band, but is modelled as I band ingame.
It falling within J band would explain why Iraqui MiG-23’s couldnt detect them during the Iran-Iraq war, so I think theres some merit to that suggestion, but I’ve been unable to find any source with definitive proof of its radar band/frequency.
Sidenote: @DSplayer your post isnt tagged to aircraft, so it gsts filtered out if I check the aircraft tags, which makes it harder to find, which is unfortunate considering the quality of the post. Mind fixing that if possible? 😅
Found some new info also! There was a 5th AIM-54 variant I dont think I’ve ever heard anyone talk about which was tested, but appears to have been cut due to budget reasons. AIM-54D with a 104+ nmi active seeker range!
That sounds impossible. As in the math says it cant happen. 100 nmi is almost outside the range of the F-14s 10kW radar, there is no way something small enough to put on a missile will have that sort of range
Thats actually pretty neat, I’d love to know what sort of range it would be effective at. I still stand by my point about total power output so I reckon its going to be very short range
The document quoted was wrong about a LOT of AIM-54 information so it’s not a good source.
- I didnt write the report, I’m just stating what it says
- TWTA’s literal job is to take a weak signal and amplify it massively.
- 100nmi is not almost outside the F-14’s radar range. AWG-9 can detect fighter sized targets out to 115nmi, and bomber sized targets out to 150nmi. The APG-71 (digital upgrade to the AWG-9 which, afaik, didnt increase power output) has a range just short of 400nmi but is antennae limited to just under 200nmi unless 2 F-14D’s are used with datalink (presumably vs bomber sized targets).
I get that, I’m not attacking you
The math still wouldn’t check out. Radar is subject to the inverse square law, at twice the distance the energy is 4 times lower, with the size and power output of a radar small enough to mount on a missile, there simply isn’t enough to amplify out at 200nmi (return included). I doubt the return is actually distinguishable at all
I did some napkin math, being very generous and assuming a Phoenix can put on 500W at 1 nmi, the expected return, ignoring any losses incurred due to the geometry of the target, would be 0.0125 W. Nothing is even picking that up, much less amplifying it
They almost increased detection range of the APG-71 by at minimum 33% with a digital upgrade of the AWG-9 with literally no change to the output power, meanwhile, this document claims the use of a high powered amplifier, new seeker electronics (over the already digital seeker electronics of the 54C/C+), and a new antennea, so from the sounds of it, effectively a completely new guidance section with increased power.
I think the claim is rather impressive yes, but I dont think its necessarily farfetched.
I think the 33% improvement with the APG71 comes from the fact that digital circuits are a lot better at reducing noise than analogues. When you amplify a signal you’re also amplifying any noise coming along with it AND also introducing additional noise. There is simply no way something with the power output and footprint of a missile can see that far out.
Here’s anothsr part of the report I almost forgot to add!
The 54C is capable of target identification through target characteristics. Which from what I understand is similar to non-cooperative target recognition, and should make the missile much harder to decoy.
I am starting to see an issue here. I think the book you’re using is hot garbage. Look at those minimum ranges 200-something meters in metric and 2nmi in imperial. 200 meters is definitely not 2 nautical miles. The author is either just making shit up or the editor was asleep. Either case that looks like a bad source for anything other than toilet paper
1 Like
Its Forecast International, and theres LITERALLY a metric section and an imperial section. Thats just you not reading properly
1 Like
He’s got me blocked but the statistics used in that article are incorrect for the AIM-54’s. Public data from primary sources disputes heavily most of what is on that document in one way or another. You can share the same information yourself so he acknowledges it.
2 Likes
I am definitely reading properly. The stated minimum range for both the A and C in metric is 203.5 meters. In imperial that same stated minimum range is 2 nautical miles. This is either made up or not proofread once
2 Likes
Ah yeah, my bad, ur right, that does look like an error
1 Like