The EOTS / IRST that the F-14 carries does what?
1 Like
Manythings.
- The AWG-9 Air Superiority Weapon Control System by Hughes Aircraft Company Aerospace Systems Divisions (PMS 613-2/2174)
As part of the AWG-9 system, the infrared subsystem complements the radar by performing the following functions:
- Airspace surveillance
- Threat assessment
- ECM penetration
- ASM detection
- Autonomous tracking and ranging
This subsystem is capable of independent search, thus providing increased airspace surveillance separate from the radar scan volume. Alternately, it may be slaved to the radar during both radar search and track modes. Detection performance against representative aircraft is illustrated on the following page. The high resolution of the IR compared to that of the radar (see figure) makes possible an estimate of raid size which is essential for the efficient commitment of other fighters and in the determination of target priorities. The tracking function provides the capability for IR passive ranging against a jamming target. The IR is imper-vious to most forms of ECM, providing an important backup for the radar in the heavy ECM environment. The IR subsystem may also be employed for “snake mode” navigation when the radar is in search or when radar silence is desired. As a backup for the radar, this subsystem may be used in launching all missiles carried by the F-14, including the AIM-54A. It provides a capability for the F-14 to detect the launch of an ASM at ranges sufficient to take defensive action.
- AIM-54A Phoenix Missile by Hughes Aircraft Company Aerospace Systems (PMS 613-1/2174)
C) The infrared sensor augments the radar for target detection and tracking. It may be slaved to the radar or search a supplemental volume of airspace. It can detect the boost phase of small cruise missiles at ranges in excess of 100 n.mi., thereby providing time for the F-14 to maneuver and attack. One milliradian azimuthal resolution makes the IR useful for raid count at long range. The IR may be used to detect, angle track, and obtain passive ranging on targets in a heavy ECM environment and may be used in launching the PHOENIX missile.
Do you know if there has been any movement on the AXX-1 report now that the F-14D has the nose blister implemented as a proper search capable sensor? Since if it’s at parity with the F-14B it should probably be similarly equipt.
“AIM-54C independent radar still utilizes HPRF PD which is only effective in front aspect”
HPRF pulse-Doppler does have aspect/notch/cold-target limitations, especially compared with MPRF for all-aspect look-down work, but “only effective in front aspect” is an oversimplification. Generic radar texts describe MPRF as better for all-aspect/tail-chase coverage, while HPRF is more naturally strong forward of beam aspect. So it’s biased front, not only effective at the front.
There is some evidence for APG-71/F-14D using MPRF with Phoenix but those are harder to find than the Navy claiming ’ all aspect ’ at this point but proving it could help the AIM-54C+ receive all aspect capabilities for sure if we can do it.
1 Like
‘The three motors are far more comparable than you guys make it out to be. The differences are very minimal.’
‘Still, the AIM-54A in-game overperforms considerably at sea level and underperforms considerably at high altitude. It is a limitation of how Gaijin models these missiles.’
Those two points are linked. The Mk 60 does not necessarily need to have a massive advantage in raw total impulse to perform better at range. What matters is not only how much impulse the motor has, but how that impulse is delivered.
If the Mk 60 has a shorter/harder boost profile compared with the Mk 47, then even with similar overall motor energy it can be more efficient in a lofted shot. It would accelerate and climb earlier, spend more of the flight in thinner air, and then coast in a lower-drag regime. That can matter a lot for long-range/high-altitude shots, even if the motor difference looks small on paper.
So yes, the motors can be broadly comparable in raw stats, but the thrust profile, loft behavior, drag model, and altitude all affect the real/in-game result. That is also why the AIM-54A can overperform at sea level while underperforming at altitude if the game model does not handle the loft/drag/energy tradeoff properly.
1 Like
Correct its meant to be an Oversimplification,
If I were to go into the minutia of why HPRF is not effective in Side/Rear Aspect engagements,
The Average War Thunder Player is gonna immediately scroll past because they don’t need to learn that, they want to know how it functions ingame and somewhat IRL, so in the end they didn’t learn anything,
Yes HPRF can be used for some Side Aspect engagements but it is extremely limited because of the nature that HPRF is optimized for measuring Targets with High Velocity Closure rates in relation to the emitting radar. Once that Closure Velocity drops to 0 the Radar will filter it out as it believes it is stationary ground clutter.
So that is why it is alright to simplify it to Relatively Limited to Front/Side-Front Aspect engagements,
and to your point about the F-14D utilizing MPRF with the 54C+ Phoenix, They would not fit a Transmitter/Receiver that for certain has the ability to receive and interpret MPRF waves because it comes from the Aim-120, to just not use that functionality that just logically doesnt make sense,
Especially when laid out in Project W0614 it also includes not just a Transmitter/Receiver but also an Improved Target Detection Device, which most certainly would be able to help overcome the limited nature of the Phoenix’s independent HPRF seeker
Also I see my comment was removed from last night all ill say is,
Lack of Objectivity is the Enemy of Discovery
It is a fair simplification c:.
High-PRF pulse-Doppler is strongest against high-closure targets and becomes much weaker around beam/cold-aspect cases. Most radar literature says all-aspect coverage is one reason to use medium PRF, while high PRF tends to give useful clutter-free detection mainly forward of beam aspect.
Saying “once closure velocity drops to 0, the radar filters it out as stationary ground clutter” is also simplified but I understand what you mean.
About the AIM-54C+ MPRF. NAVAIR says the AIM-54C+ had a high-power TWT transmitter adapted from AIM-120, a low-sidelobe antenna, internal heaters, and newer memory chips, but it does not say the Phoenix seeker gained MPRF. A TWT from AIM-120 does not prove AIM-120-style waveform modes. A transmitter/amplifier can be reused for power, reliability, frequency agility, or packaging without importing the full AMRAAM seeker logic. But if you have informations I don’t have or probably skipped you can share it as it would be useful.
“receive and interpret MPRF waves from the F-14D”. The F-14D/APG-71 radar may use MPRF for its own target tracking, and there is evidence the APG-71 had planned or later radar-mode growth involving medium PRF, but that does not prove the missile’s own active seeker used MPRF. The missile datalink would be track/update information, not the missile simply “using MPRF waves” from the aircraft as a replacement seeker.
When the Missiles seeker is blinded, it will utilize the MPRF DL information to still guide
I never said it would utilize it as a replacement seeker,
1 Like
My bad then.
I will say it won’t be as effective as the normal Aim-120 in maintaining tracking just because of the nature of the 54C’s own independent seeker still being HPRF,
but its no different than when any ARH at top tier is blinded by a notching target and it swaps to relying solely on DL, as the Guiding aircraft is likely not being notched and is still tracking,
Obviously once that DL contact is lost it swaps fully back to just the Missiles seeker and and then if the target notches it again and the missile turns off it PD Filter to maintain tracking, it becomes susceptible to Chaff and Ground Clutter
Yes, it will never be as effective as an AIM-120 in tracking for sure. To be fair top tier missiles are a bit weird overall and I wish it had a rework once again.
lack of information available unfortunately,
120C/D getting proper maneuverability one day hopefully
I do want to point out that according to other sources talking about the waveform, is that it is not just an unmodulated pulse waveform. It uses linear frequency modulation, as used in FMCW, in order to increase ranging capability. HPRF doesn’t inherently have no ranging capability, but it’s of limited use due to aliasing of course.
The excerpt with “with range discrimination” isn’t wrong based on that, but considering the mention of LFM in other documents, I think that mention implies the use of LFM for ranging purposes in order to form (useful) beam aspect capability.
But I can’t say for sure how effective it would be, because pulse waveforms cause eclipsing issues, which create blind ranges, but it can be solved by using multiple PRFs to stagger blind ranges or something or maybe some other techniques.
I would agree but as all of the information we have available it points to the 54C’s seeker still being HPRF,
so for War Thunder purposes it will still have those limitations that are associated with HPRF in game,
It definetly does utilize Linea Frequency Modulation irl to help with ranging but because at least the seeker can’t jump between HPRF and MPRF ingame it will still have limitations that are associated with those waves.
Is LFM modeled ingame?
from what i understand it is not
In-game AIM-54C does have Doppler filtering/gating so not a basic CW. But it does not have LFM/range discrimination like the real AIM-54C as it’s not a game feature yet. BUT compared to the AIM-120s we have right now, it doesn’t have the distance/distGate seeker logic, so its behavior should be more vulnerable to notch/low-closure situations than a missile with both Doppler and range gating modeled.
If War Thunder has a distance/distGate mechanic to represent range discrimination on ARH missiles, then the AIM-54C lacking any equivalent range gate looks like an under-modeling issue.
'Under-Modeling"
That’s Gaijin’s bread and butter,
No need to model properly just copy paste
Gotta be one of the funniest episodes of this game,
Nooooo only the SepV3 got the Upgraded DU Turret and Hull Armor, they said when people asked for the DU Hull on the SepV2
OMG Only 6 SepV2 tanks received Upgraded Hull DU but they’re only at the Tank School so it doesnt count that they were produced to Gaijin.
Fast Forward SepV3 gets added still no upgraded DU Hull plates
Classic Gaijin
Meanwhile the Leclerc not having an effective 81 degrees angled hull as stated in many documents and the IN GAME MODEL being 81 degrees but being calculated as 77, The Namer being as heavy as a Merkava 4M with no turret and LACKING SOMEHOW the side armors and many many more.
But nah just add an FCS to the Leclerc when if hit anywhere it just die and somehow you can’t move the turret or shoot anymore.
I am tired chief.
Funnily enough the Mk4 is missing like over 10 tons of weight, still weighs the same as the Mk3
They only increased the Mk4M slightly to .5 tons more just cause of the APS
1 Like