F-2

https://www.scribd.com/document/429057021/F-16-Pulse-Doppler-Radar-AN-APG-66-Performance-1983 We have good documentation on APG-66 too, their are other papers too https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1457409

It can be done but it has to be a third party

I think Burt Rutan was the flight test engineer in the F-4 flat Spin tests.

F-2 demo, more aggressive then normal.

Lot 26 is covered in the publicly available super hornet manual but I don’t recall anyone ever mentioning it as a possibility. In curious if later lots before they got the apg-79 had any such ability.

Current world events show that numerical and technological superiority are on their own meaningless. You need doctrine and people trained and drilled in execution of that doctrine. Thus I stand by my point.

That’s what Flight says but others mentioned 27, so I’m not totally sure.

I get that, I just mean they seem so determined to keep the legacy hornet till 2030.

I get that the Marines didn’t want the Super Hornet because of the F-35. But with the hornet fleet basically being done and all those block 1 super hornets not doing anything it just seems like a waste.

I’ve actually been dying to know if the proposed APG-73 AESA upgrade was related to apg-79. Thank you! do you have any information on what APG-73 AESA would have entailed?

For the time being it seems the Mig-29 would have to be a third party item.

Apg-66, AAM-3, ASM-2. Interestingly non-slated. Hud is a modified Alpha jet

Very uncalled for, GG has been one of the major drivers of getting the F-15 changed at all and he did nothing to warrant being insulted. No one making good faith arguments should be subjected to that. the F-15A launched with A-7 equivalent attack capability. https://books.google.com/books?id=wLI9AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA4217&dq=f-15+ground+equivalent+a-7&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCpojDvdP7AhXOGFkFHVYtDwQQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=f-15 ground equivalent a-7&f=false the USAF retained that capability but all light gray Eagle training was focused on pure air to air while procurement only filled air superiority squadrons. This was the right move as we saw by the great success of Eagle Squadrons in the Gulf war and Balkans conflicts. By the time the USAF was in a position to buy eagles for the strike mission technology had based the original air to ground suit by and it was desirable to build the strike Eagle. As I understand it the USAF only planned to use the Eagle’s air to ground capability in a situation where they had limited assets in theater. Given how FC3 is simplified I don’t find this a major omission.

APG-79 in particular but I wouldn’t say AESA in general the J/APG-1 Engineering model has some fairly extensive test data in existence that apparently not classified and was used in some papers. Apparently J/APG-1 was primarily a commercial effort. the F-22 3-3 manual is currently FOUO but not classified and apparently has a lot of information on APG-77. Maybe in 10-15 years. their is some talk of small commercial AESA being talked about for aircraft like a fighter variant of the T-7. It’s possible one of those systems, provided they aren’t related to any of the big boy radars might become available.

Classified, I found documents that explicitly state quite a lot about APG-79 is secret and another saying APG-63(v)3 which is very similar is secret. As far as I can tell every US AESA with the possible but very unlikely exception of APG-63(v)2 and APG-80, which I suspect are I just haven’t found any confirmation yet.

According to flight international lot 30 was the first with native APG-79 and lot 26-29 where refits https://www.flightglobal.com/ultra-hornet/72467.article

What about the early block II with APG-73?

But they gave it to him in the 2010s when he was working on the book too. So I’m hopeful it might be plausible at some point.

I think the block 30 here is a small mouth

I head during the AFTI F-16 program it’s success was very mixed also apparently it’s hard to use over 5 G but one guy was able to use it up to 9. I bet he got made fun of for that, nine times gravity couldn’t shut him up. I believe the Rafale has a similar system? Not sure how it worked for them.

Over 40 of the last build F-15C where delivered with APG-70, couldn’t have been that deficient. As I understand it APG-63(v)1 was built due to difficulty getting spare parts for apg-70 due to short sighted supply issues dating back decades. Maybe their is a huge difference in performance but I’ve never seen it mentioned.

We should just do a community mod to fly without the CFT so we can enjoy the experience and then enjoy the module with the question in the back of our heads extinguished.

Might be enough for an F1. Raz never had a mirage 2000 RDI manual the French Air Force saw some potential and supported it. If you can build something to interest a Rafale customer you might be in buisness. I have some docs on how the RBE2 antenna works. While the signal processor is the same as the RDY and the rest of the components are a mix of RDY and mirage 2000D.

I’ve got some from an F2 simulator made by a SME.

Interesting, got anything I can read on it?