Blaze1

A-6E HUD The following I believe, is a developmental version of the A-6E HUD, it never made it to service:

GG, I'm surprised because the -63(V)1 is the newer radar, so I thought that given its upgrades the US versions would be better for air-to-air and the Korean versions better for both air-to-air and air-to-ground (assuming no export downgrades). I guess I was wrong.

:laugh: I was about to comment on how long they were.

Hmmm, that's surprising.

When modelling these aircraft, the issue isn't really one of classification, but of available data. The only US aircraft out there that modelling would be difficult/impossible due to classification, are the B-2 Spirit and perhaps the U-2S or other ELINT platforms.

KSnow, my info is quite stale, so perhaps the -70 has received some software updates to allow GMTT, but in the past I thought it only had GMTI, so could display indications of moving targets but couldn't actually lock-on and track them? The -63(V)1 was supposed to be an upgrade over the -63 and -70, so some Albinos had their -70s replaced with the -63(V)1. I don't know why Hughes didn't designate them AN/APG-70(V)1 :dunno:, maybe some internal sequencing system they used. The 63(V)1 was the latest mechanically scanned array for the Eagle, with apparently improved maintainability, processing, software, ECCM etc. The F-15Ks fitted with the 63(V)1 seem to have some air-to-ground modes (land and sea) akin to those used on the Hornet, perhaps to help with targeting the SLAM-ER and Harpoon.

The -82 trumps them all, but with cost always playing a significant part, if there're enough -63(V)1's remaining after the Albinos get upgraded and the plan is not to upgrade all the Es with AESA, perhaps the -63V1 may be of some benefit?

The specific capabilities of NCTR systems tends to be classified, so it will depend on the system as well as the target. Having said that, identification of rear aspect signatures from turbine blades, high bypass fans and propellers should be possible. This is one of the reasons a lot of effort was put into the design of the nozzle and flameholder section of the PW F135. The flameholder is particularly impressive, because its curved vanes seem to completely conceal the turbine blades.

Head-on or tail aspect should work.

Yes. It compares the radar signature to signatures it has in its library, like a RWR.

:laugh: The ID matrix is just a list of methods used to help identify airborne contacts, so NCTR, IFF, TGP, AWACS, Visual ID etc. How comprehensive/restrictive that is will depend on the ROE (Rules of Engagement). For NCTR to work, the radar transmissions from the host aircraft must be able to reflect off the engines fan blades (forward sector only for low bypass engines, may be able to get rear sector fan returns from high bypass engines and props) or the turbine blades in the rear, so the aspect of the target plays a large role in the ability to achieve a valid ID. Inverse SAR is basically like a high resolution ground map, but performed in a different manner over a very small area around a moving target. I hope that helps.

Interesting article. NCTR forms part of the ID matrix which is dependent on specific ROE and from the technical side, also aspect (front quarter for the fan blades and rear quarter for the turbine blades). It may be possible for advanced radars such as AESAs, with very fine range resolution and powerful digital processing, to employ Inverse SAR techniques allowing them to identify targets by their skin/shape signature rather than engines.

This isn't a great video of it, but you get a brief glimpse of the PASS display here, as well as the FPCD and EMD, although this jet isn't fitted with the VSDR.

That's an interesting point you raised Rainmaker. The -63(V)1 is a better radar than the -70. The Korean's use it with their 'Ks' and it features a few air-to-ground modes in particular not present on the -70, such as GMTT for example. Cost is always an issue, but with the 'C' (some of them) being upgraded to V3 standard and the talk of retiring those airframes, you'd think the V1 which is more reliable (lower cost) than the -70 would be the way to go. Numbers may be an issue though, as in not enough V1's available yet.

Yes, that's the one! I don't know about the -82(V)1 implementation, but the -63(V)3 has at least one nice feature on the RDR Attack format and that's the picture-in-picture window. Not sure how useful it is though. Ahhh, so you've already played your fair share of space invaders on that radar screen.:D It must've been fun getting up to speed with the new equipment and I'd think the workload must've improved quite a bit, particularly for the GIB? It's funny because it's like things are about to come full circle now. Back in the day when commercial flight sims were of much lesser fidelity than today, users longed for the day that aircraft models would incorporate 'realistic' radar modes, with all the various TWS options and other parameters. Now that we've got these features, real jets are beginning to turn up with AESA, which from an operators vantage is more akin to those sim radars from a bygone age.

Great video, thanks for posting it DeathRaptor and thumbs up to whoever recorded it!:thumbup:

I speculated in a different thread that it my have been designed that way, to allow for greater angular spacing (to alleviate overlapping symbols), between the most important type of threats (the critical sort). What you mentioned makes a great deal of sense though, considering the ALR-67 was the Navy's fully digital RWR upgrade immediately after the ALR-45.

OnlyforDCS, so we know that Heatblur's F-14 is the last thing you think about before going to sleep, but is the first thing you think of when you wake up and do you dream about it?

Yep, that's definitely Iron Eagle.

The presentation of the AA mode is very similar (almost identical) to that of the AAQ-14 when install on the F-15E. The only notable differences are the FoV cue and the cross.

I think the USAF variant and the Naval version used by the F-14 have two different designations, AN/AAQ-14 & AN/AAQ-25 respectively, but I don't know if there're any internal differences between the two. The LANTIRN (USAF) system consisted of two pods, the AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod and the AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod. The Nav Pod contains the FLIR and the imagery it received and processed was superimposed on the HUD. The Nav Pod also contained a radar for terrain following flight. The two pods could be used independently and one didn't rely on the other, so not having the Nav Pod shouldn't deter from any AA capabilities if present. The following video gives the viewer a brief look at the LANTIRN AA mode of the F-15E:

I'll repeat mine again. It's a conversion between two people, with one asking a question and the other giving the answer: So the two quotes are: Question - "You will be outta here wontcha?" Answer - "So fast you can't believe it"

:laugh: