How good was the F-14's radar?

[Frisco1522]

I know it had a ridiculous range (compared to aircraft today), it could track 24 targets, and lock 6 at a time..

 

How detectable was it in the field?

How long could the radar remain on without overheating? (Like the MiG-21)

Could it possibly detect stealth aircraft with it's pulse radar mode or something like it?

How good was it at detecting anti-ship missiles at low altitudes?

Could the RIO switch between the 4 Doppler and 2 Pulse modes, or was this all automatic?

 

From Wikipedia:

(On the F-14, the AWG-9 is capable of detecting bomber-sized targets at ranges exceeding 100 miles (160 km), and its doppler system allows it to have look-down, shoot-down capabilities. Track-while-scan capability is provided by an Intel 8080 8-bit microprocessor; programming it is accomplished using an 8-bit Assembly code.)

 

And I have a question about something mentioned in this video at 13:29-13:57

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_jde3X7c9Q[/ame]

 

Did the radar really have some sort of countermeasure system built in?

Would an enemy aircraft really never have an idea it was being fired upon at max range?

 

Frisco1522

[Ktulu2]

Could it possibly detect stealth aircraft with it's pulse radar mode or something like it?

Nothing official, but if SAMs can't detect stealth, it won't unless at very close ranges

 

Could the RIO switch between the 4 Doppler and 2 Pulse modes, or was this all automatic?

As it's not automatic in the F15 for the pulse modes, I'm pretty sure that yes. No idea for the doppler modes

 

Would an enemy aircraft really never have an idea it was being fired upon at max range?

Long range engagements require STT lock, and RWR can detect radar waves from further than radars can detect targets, so I'm pretty sure that's false UNLESS we are talking about REALLY old RWRs like the Mig-21 etc

 

 

Nothing official, just educated guesses...I'm sure others will correct me if i'm wrong

[SDsc0rch]

*cough*datalink*cough*

[turkeydriver]

I don't think you can get all the facts on the radar still. Here's a few thoughts to consider.

 

AT THE TIME of introduction, the AWG-9 could track a target in TWS for an AIM-54 shot at a very low power signal due to its advanced receivers for the time. Espionage and the fall of Iran negated this feature that would have ensured instant death and was key to ensuring AIM-54 kills.

 

It had many modes and the main display translated that data into a simplified tactical picture to allow the RIO to make the best time critical decisions to deter a multi-bomber, multi cruise missile scenario with the best chance for success. Above this screen the RIO, if crafty enough, could still manipulate raw radar data to see what the processor was trying to translate- this feature contributed most likely to the legendary reputation of the radar.

 

Common beliefs and accepted understandings are:

The AWG-9 was optimized for maximum detection range over water and not as good as the APG-63 in filtering out targets against terrain.

AIM-7 shots still required STT of one target- and if the target had an RWR- you tripped it.

It was a maintenance pain! A lot of modules, that could get shaken loose during the cat shot, and then reseat during the trap!

[Beamscanner]

Considering that the aircraft can engage 6 targets simultaneously, then it does NOT need to hard lock targets for the aim-54. It would have to do TWS for that.

 

Not sure if RWRs of the day were designed to pick up the mid course link(or if they ever have). But I'd say that it's really unlikely. Especially considering how rudimentary the spo150 is.

 

Aim-54s dive on their targets at high speed. So I'd guess that the time between pitbull and splash is short:)

[Sweep]

My only problem (well, outside of the fact that the USN never added the Slammer to the Cat) is that we won't have any sort of NCTR in the radar itself, AFAIK.

 

Edit: and IIRC the multi-AIM-54 shot midcourse guidance was SARH, not the one-way datalink+INS like the 120 has in-game right now.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Sweep

[BlackLion213]

I don't know that much about the AWG-9 compared to other F-14 systems, but I managed to pick-up a few things from prior conversations and postings.

 

One important bit of background: the AWG-9 and essentially all of the F-14A/Bs avionics were quite old for it's operational life. The AWG-9 was developed in the 1960s and was fully 1960s/analog tech when it became operational in the F-14. It's tech was regarded as rather ancient by the 1980s (let alone 1990s and 2000s), but it's capabilities were so far ahead of it's time that it managed to stay relevant and adequately capable for most of the F-14s career. However, as an analog device, it was much more operator dependent than more modern radars.

 

I learned a ton from a dearly departed blogger named Neptunus Lex - a former F/A-18A/C pilot who entered the fleet in the 1980s (one of the first nugget pilots to fly the Hornet). He really added to my Hornet interest, but really did me in by adding to the Tomcat's lore. Sadly he passed away in 2011 (accident at Fallon).

 

He was an avid Hornet proponent (no surprise), but not particularly harsh to the Tomcat (unlike most USAF pilots). He spelled it out pretty clearly. To him, the Tomcat was certainly not less capable than the Hornet in A-A, but wasn't much better for the average engagement. The Tomcat had a definite advantage at the extremes of sensor range, but the Hornet had much better avionics and was much more consistent. Basically, the digital signal processors, et al, really improved the usability of the radar. The Tomcat, all analog, was at the mercy of it's operator. If he RIO was good, the AWG-9 offered a bit more and could create an impressive radar picture. If the RIO was not so good, then the radar picture might suck. These highs and lows were not present in the Hornet (and by extrapolation - not the F-15C or F-16C either).

 

In short, the Tomcat and AWG-9 were the stuff of hyperbole - amazing stories about when it worked and serious criticism when it didn't. Basically like an Italian car from the 1980s or 1990s. ;)

 

There was also considerable criticism of the Tomcat for the many, many times that it would suffer a radar failure, mechanical problem, missiles wouldn't tune, etc. My favorite quote from Lex (paraphrased somewhat - been a while): "The many times that the Tomcat would struggle off the deck, climb to altitude, and join up with a big strike package only to sign in as "IFF only" - it was enough to leave my oxygen mask caked with the salt of my tears."

 

Though, it sounds like that scenario might be coming to your Leatherneck F-14...that's what I call a complete experience. :D

 

Finally, everything I've read about the AWG-9 seems to state that the Phoenix was launched and guided via TWS mode. Data was sent from the radar to the missiles for mid-course guidance, with terminal guidance provided by the Phoenix's own radar (everyone knows that last part). I'm not aware of anything with TWS mode that would alert an aircraft to an inbound missile. It wasn't "locking" 6 targets per se (the radar was not following each target like STT), but the TWS offered enough detail and target info to get the Phoenix most of the way there. The AWG-9 could track and display 24 targets in TWS, but could guide 6 missiles (which may have more to do with the fact that the Tomcat could carry a max of 6 Phoenix's - not sure though).

 

Also, it could detect sea skimming missiles. It was the first US aircraft that could do that (IIRC). But I don't know how that ability compared to later radars. Part of the challenge in these comparisons: the AWG-9 stayed essentially the same for the Tomcat's entire career while everything around it changed. What it was "good at" really depended on your point of reference (both for time and hardware).

 

Best,

 

Nick

[strikeeagle]

From a real F-15 driver...

 

...during a 15 vs 14 discussion on another forum:

 

"Ok, I’ll throw my .02 in specifically referencing the F-15A/C and focusing primarily on air-to-air combat. 3 tours flying that active duty with another 11 years in the ANG. Never flew the F-14 but fought against it.

 

When you speak of F-14, it’s important to specify F-14A versus F-14B/D. Two very different fighter aircraft.

 

F-14A: older AWG-9 radar, very limited usefulness in look down, especially over terrain, TF-30 engines that required significant attention at high altitude and high AOA, very outdated avionics compared with the F-15C.

 

F-14B: much better GE engines and eventually upgraded with better avionics though still saddled with the old AWG-9.

 

F-14D: GE engines, better avionics and an APG-71 radar vastly superior to the AWG-9.

 

Generally speaking, I would characterize the F-15 as much more user friendly. It was designed from the outset to be employed by a single pilot. The interface between pilot and weapons systems/avionics is far superior to the two crew member set up in the F-14. The engines are not the biggest/best on the block any longer, but they are robust and can be operated relatively care-free in any manner necessary throughout the entire flight envelope without concern. Considering the radar, engine and avionics disadvantages across the board in the F-14A, it’s really not worth comparing those with the F-15. F-14 B/D are more worthy of comparison.

 

BVR:

The F-14 wins the longest stick award with the AIM-54 missile, at least on paper. In reality, the AWG-9/AIM-54 combination was optimized for over water, non-maneuvering engagements. Under any other circumstances, i.e. over terrain against aware F-15s, the chances of successfully using those missiles drops dramatically. F-14D would probably be a better match with the APG-71, however, the AIM-54 (while very capable) was still at least a generation behind the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

 

Considering no operational F-14 ever gained the capability to employ AIM-120 AMRAAMs, I would have to give the BVR edge to the F-15.

 

WVR:

In a visual fight, an F-14A would quickly lose the advantage due to lack of engine power. One drawback of all F-14 aircraft is the auto wing-sweep. As the aircraft slows and loses energy, the wings sweep forward giving a visual indication of its airspeed and energy state which can be exploited, especially by a fighter with superior thrust and acceleration capability like the F-15.

 

F-14B/D would be a more challenging adversary due to the improved engines. I would say they would be closer to equal aircraft in terms of thrust to weight and maneuverability. However, the F-15 would still be able to offset that with a weapons advantage. All current F-15 are able to employ AIM-9X with helmet mounted sight, allowing significantly higher off-boresite weapons employment that the AIM-9M carried by the F-14.

 

So, overall: If you took two F-14D crews and two F-15C pilots of equal skill/training, gave them a full up weapons load with the same ID criteria/ROE and started them 100 miles apart with the mission to shoot each other down – barring any major errors on the part of the Eagle drivers, by the end of the engagement, both F-14s would most likely be destroyed."

[MBot]

BlackLion213 already mentioned it, these things have to be put into the context of the timeframe. Through not strictly related to the radar topic, for example the comparision of AIM-9X armed F-15C with AIM-9M armed F-14D is not saying much, considering that at the time AIM-9X was introduced, the F-14D was probably already being discomissioned.

 

I can't say much about the quality of the AWG-9, but the apparently the F-15A was not that hot either in the radar department (which probably makes the F-14A the reference of the era):

 

Where the F-15A fell short, at least compared to what the jet became, is in the avionics department. The original APG-63 radar nowhere lived up to the hype and is worthy of a whole other discussion.

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

[Grundar]

Great post Blacklion and pretty much surmises everything that I've read about the AWG-9.

 

I look at the AWG-9 and I admire it for what it was and that was a long range radar capable of allowing rapid engagement of threats. When I think back to the state of the world in the 70's and 80's and when I imagined another World War scenario or if the Cold War went hot; those F-14's in the fleet would of been launched en-mass (with E2 support and other fleet aircraft) and the incoming wall of Bears and other soviet aircraft would of been greeted by a mass wave of Phoenix missiles. One thing about the phoenix that always seems to pop up when I read about it - especially any of Bio's stuff, is that it seems to have had a wonderful ability to be very capable in a high EW environment.

 

Of course even if the world again erupted into war back then maybe we would of seen much smaller level engagements, but I always did imagine that wave vs wave and that phoenix tsunami. I would also point out that ROE these days often seems to require visual identification which tends to nullify those wonderful phoenix ranges. But damn it would of been a big deterrent to an enemy.

 

I guess there is also to consider that the AWG-9 and phoenix were intertwined and that the limitations erupted from that forced symbiosis. Also that old analogue stuff was prone to been shocked about from launches off the deck and it was fairly common to see some sort of component failure.

 

Man just feel like I kicked a dog or something, talking bad about the F-14 :/

Edited November 19, 2015 by Grundar
Spelling corrections

[dekiplav]

...during a 15 vs 14 discussion on another forum:

 

BVR:

The F-14 wins the longest stick award with the AIM-54 missile, at least on paper. In reality, the AWG-9/AIM-54 combination was optimized for over water, non-maneuvering engagements. Under any other circumstances, i.e. over terrain against aware F-15s, the chances of successfully using those missiles drops dramatically. F-14D would probably be a better match with the APG-71, however, the AIM-54 (while very capable) was still at least a generation behind the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Considering no operational F-14 ever gained the capability to employ AIM-120 AMRAAMs, I would have to give the BVR edge to the F-15. "

 

I wonder what an F-14 Pilot/Rio has to say about that statement ;).

Edited November 19, 2015 by dekiplav

[BlackLion213]

...during a 15 vs 14 discussion on another forum:

 

"Ok, I’ll throw my .02 in specifically referencing the F-15A/C and focusing primarily on air-to-air combat. 3 tours flying that active duty with another 11 years in the ANG. Never flew the F-14 but fought against it.

 

When you speak of F-14, it’s important to specify F-14A versus F-14B/D. Two very different fighter aircraft.

 

F-14A: older AWG-9 radar, very limited usefulness in look down, especially over terrain, TF-30 engines that required significant attention at high altitude and high AOA, very outdated avionics compared with the F-15C.

 

F-14B: much better GE engines and eventually upgraded with better avionics though still saddled with the old AWG-9.

 

F-14D: GE engines, better avionics and an APG-71 radar vastly superior to the AWG-9.

 

Generally speaking, I would characterize the F-15 as much more user friendly. It was designed from the outset to be employed by a single pilot. The interface between pilot and weapons systems/avionics is far superior to the two crew member set up in the F-14. The engines are not the biggest/best on the block any longer, but they are robust and can be operated relatively care-free in any manner necessary throughout the entire flight envelope without concern. Considering the radar, engine and avionics disadvantages across the board in the F-14A, it’s really not worth comparing those with the F-15. F-14 B/D are more worthy of comparison.

 

BVR:

The F-14 wins the longest stick award with the AIM-54 missile, at least on paper. In reality, the AWG-9/AIM-54 combination was optimized for over water, non-maneuvering engagements. Under any other circumstances, i.e. over terrain against aware F-15s, the chances of successfully using those missiles drops dramatically. F-14D would probably be a better match with the APG-71, however, the AIM-54 (while very capable) was still at least a generation behind the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

 

Considering no operational F-14 ever gained the capability to employ AIM-120 AMRAAMs, I would have to give the BVR edge to the F-15C.

 

Hmm...

 

Why does every discussion of the F-14 immediately lead to a discussion on the F-15?

 

If they are so impressed by their own capabilities, why do they feel the need to reinforce their abilities every time we discuss something else? Seems like their might some insecurity over in Eagle country. ;)

 

Some "Phoenix envy"...if you will :D

 

I kid...sort of. ;) I like the F-15C, but not every discussion needs to be a comparison.

 

-Nick

[Corrigan]

Some "Phoenix envy"...if you will :D

 

: D

[Ktulu2]

Hmm...

 

Why does every discussion of the F-14 immediately lead to a discussion on the F-15?

 

The F-15 is the reference when it comes to BVR questions, which is the case here

[Dudikoff]

The F-15 is the reference when it comes to BVR questions, which is the case here

 

Yeah, but it would have been more useful if the pilot had compared more matching variants, e.g. F-14A vs. F-15A (perhaps non-PSP) or F-14D (or even A/B) vs. F-15C MSIP II with AIM-7M.

 

Determining BVR outcome based on having or not having AMRAAM missiles (or worse yet, mentioning JHMCS in WVR context (?) which IIRC was introduced well after F-14D was withdrawn for service) kind of misses the point IMHO.

[captain_dalan]

Hmm...

 

Why does every discussion of the F-14 immediately lead to a discussion on the F-15?

 

I'd guess the Ego drivers had to wait over 2 decades to wash up those bruises, let them have their fun i say :smilewink:

[SUBS17]

The Iranian F-14s have quite a good history they have used Aim54s and shot down fighters including in WVR. They have also won dogfights vs Mig29 and Su27 IRL so although on paper it might in some ways appear not as good as other aircraft F-14 crew still trained at Topgun etc. Regarding use the F-14 I've found in previous sims particularly F-14 Fleet defender was quite good as a missile platform with Aim54s you could shoot down heaps of enemy aircraft then return to the carrier rearm and then back into it. In DCS it would not be so simple when they model it, but it will be different in combat. BTW IRL the Iraqi Air Force ran into problems when fighting the F-14s because not all their aircraft had RWR so the Mirage F1s RWR was used to warn all their aircraft that Tomcats were in the area.

[Toybasher]

Will radar clutter be modeled like the MiG-21? (not sure if realistic because I assume the F-14's radar had stuff to auto-filter clutter. No idea though.)

[MBot]

Do we have some insight or anecdotes how good the ECCM capabilities of the AWG-9 were? In it's fleet defense mission, the F-14 was expected to operate against heavy jamming.

 

The primary air threat to the carriers were the Soviet naval aviation or long range aviation missile strike regiments. These units were usualy organized into two missile carrier squadrons of 10 Tu-16/22/22M each and a support squadron including tankers, ELINT and about 4 electronic warfare aircraft. In long range aviation Tu-22 regiments these escort jammers were Tu-22P, in Tu-16 and Tu-22M regiments these were Tu-16P, Tu-16SPS or some other Tu-16 variant. This means that in addition to the self-defense ECM systems of each bomber, a powerful, dedicated, bomber-sized escort jammer was available per 5 strike aircraft.

 

Those that are playing CMANO might have noticed what a big difference these jammers make in this game.

[Grundar]

Do we have some insight or anecdotes how good the ECCM capabilities of the AWG-9 were? In it's fleet defense mission, the F-14 was expected to operate against heavy jamming.

 

The primary air threat to the carriers were the Soviet naval aviation or long range aviation missile strike regiments. These units were usualy organized into two missile carrier squadrons of 10 Tu-16/22/22M each and a support squadron including tankers, ELINT and about 4 electronic warfare aircraft. In long range aviation Tu-22 regiments these escort jammers were Tu-22P, in Tu-16 and Tu-22M regiments these were Tu-16P, Tu-16SPS or some other Tu-16 variant. This means that in addition to the self-defense ECM systems of each bomber, a powerful, dedicated, bomber-sized escort jammer was available per 5 strike aircraft.

 

Those that are playing CMANO might have noticed what a big difference these jammers make in this game.

 

Dave "Bio" Baranek mentions that the AWG-9/Phoenix was very effective in a heavy ECM environment - I can't remember if he mentioned this in his book Top Gun Days or on his website or I might of even heard it on Aviation Xtended's podcast about the F14 (that was a great one too). Dave was quite impressed with the Phoenix's capabilities it seems and given his experience with the F14 RIO position I would take his word seriously.

 

Given that as you mention the threat to the carriers were long range squadrons EW support it sounds like the AWG-9/Phoenix combo would of been of great use within those situations (and hence what it was designed for - long range destruction of aircraft threatening the carrier group).

[Lt_Maverick]

The Iranian F-14s have quite a good history they have used Aim54s and shot down fighters including in WVR. They have also won dogfights vs Mig29 and Su27 IRL so although on paper it might in some ways appear not as good as other aircraft F-14 crew still trained at Topgun etc. Regarding use the F-14 I've found in previous sims particularly F-14 Fleet defender was quite good as a missile platform with Aim54s you could shoot down heaps of enemy aircraft then return to the carrier rearm and then back into it. In DCS it would not be so simple when they model it, but it will be different in combat. BTW IRL the Iraqi Air Force ran into problems when fighting the F-14s because not all their aircraft had RWR so the Mirage F1s RWR was used to warn all their aircraft that Tomcats were in the area.

 

 

Yes but over time the Iraqis started to adapt to how the Phoenix operated giving everybody valuable Intel on their performance.

 

 

 

 

"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."- General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262.

 

 

JayRac3r/Lt_Mav YouTube Channel