Jump to content

AN/APG-63 range is under-represented


Recommended Posts

7 минут назад, draconus сказал:

///

Yeah-yeah, very wise move, already saw it. It's not like the community could boost the possible change drastically, no. So untill the documentation isn't published for everyone you can FORGET about any changes.

I really don't understand, why conceal that doc from everyone? Su-27SK manual is already posted here as well as MiG-29s and Typhoons


Edited by TotenDead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Yeah-yeah, very wise move, already saw it. It's not like the community could boost the possible change drastically, no. So untill the documentation isn't published for everyone you can FORGET about any changes.

I really don't understand, why conceal that doc from everyone? Su-27SK manual is already posted here as well as MiG-29s and Typhoons

I'd have cited Rule 1.16 but that you probably know too.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 минут назад, draconus сказал:

I'd have cited Rule 1.16 but that you probably know too.

I'd have cited messages and links with MiG-29, Su-27 and EF typhoon manuals, but you can probably find them yourself easily. If you're (or someone is) afraid of local shtasi then the document can be posted on the russian part of the forum safely. Noone, including Chizh, bans there for manuals while here, yeah, you can be banned for a one single page of a manual of a semi-modern plane.


Edited by TotenDead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TotenDead said:

No documentation posted on the forum. Seems like those who have the data are unwilling to share it with community and don't really want the aircraft to be "corrected"

Most of the information is here in this post

Its a pentagon link, so I think Chizh had some trouble accessing it from Russia same with that 1995 F-15C manual.

I guess that's what he sent him.

 

It does make sense to post the info here publicly too, even if it is for posterity.

 


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres also this, GG has the full doc IIRC, but for the record this is pre PSP and significantly earlier than 1980, i think 1973?

Removed 1.16 Image -NineLine

 

For reference, T-33 RCS is 6m^2 head on, a bit more tail on


Edited by NineLine
Removed 1.16 Image
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Most of the information is here in this post

Its a pentagon link, so I think Chizh had some trouble accessing it from Russia same with that 1995 F-15C manual.

I guess that's what he sent him.

 

It does make sense to post the info here publicly too, even if it is for posterity.

 

 

 

I sent him the entire file directly.

18 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

Theres also this, GG has the full doc IIRC, but for the record this is pre PSP and significantly earlier than 1980, i think 1973?

 

 

For reference, T-33 RCS is 6m^2 head on, a bit more tail on

 

 

Also for reference, the T-33 RCS is considered to be similar to that of a MiG-21.   Not the same obviously.

 

I don't have the doc handy to look at right now, but this is a test of the original APG-63 being flown on a test aircraft, probably not even on an F-15.  So yes, early 70's.  


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 часов назад, dundun92 сказал:

Theres also this, GG has the full doc IIRC, but for the record this is pre PSP and significantly earlier than 1980, i think 1973?

 

 

For reference, T-33 RCS is 6m^2 head on, a bit more tail on

 

What does that mess of planes mean? Does the radar have ~85nm detection range against T-33 or about 60? Why can it see better against the ground than against the sky? Looks absolutely uninformative tbh.

8 часов назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

Most of the information is here in this post

Its a pentagon link, so I think Chizh had some trouble accessing it from Russia same with that 1995 F-15C manual.

I guess that's what he sent him.

 

It does make sense to post the info here publicly too, even if it is for posterity.

 

 



So, 90km against F-4?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

What does that mess of planes mean?

These are probably actual detections from the tests. Take note of the direction of the target. Some were detected farther and some closer which depends on many factors and is normal. Not all aspects and situations were shown or considered obviously.

  • Like 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TotenDead said:

What does that mess of planes mean? Does the radar have ~85nm detection range against T-33 or about 60? Why can it see better against the ground than against the sky? Looks absolutely uninformative tbh.

 

Here's an educated guess:  The range at which they were doing the tests was around 60.   The low altitude 85nm pick-up was when the T-33 was taking off.   The FCF procedure for testing this radar set in the 90's had the starting distance set to 100nm.   You don't need 100nm if you're picking up contacts at 60nm or 90km.

 

9 hours ago, TotenDead said:

So, 90km against F-4?

 

Nope, that's pretty low.  Lower than the F-4's own radar.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Here's an educated guess:  The range at which they were doing the tests was around 60.   The low altitude 85nm pick-up was when the T-33 was taking off.   The FCF procedure for testing this radar set in the 90's had the starting distance set to 100nm.   You don't need 100nm if you're picking up contacts at 60nm or 90km.

 

60 looks reasonable, but 90? Against the ground? Even with flaps and gear down doesn't really sound plausible

 

5 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Nope, that's pretty low.  Lower than the F-4's own radar.

Well, that's what the dockument says. And I seriously doubt that F-4 could detect another F-4 at 90km. Could be wrong though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

60 looks reasonable, but 90? Against the ground? Even with flaps and gear down doesn't really sound plausible

 

It's not only reasonable, it is the only way you get the radar range superiority that's supposed to be there vs. F-16s and F-18s, and that superiority is absolutely there.  And let me re-iterate:  The 160nm setting on the radar is there for reason, and that reason is not just 'to see bombers at 90nm'.

 

Quote

Well, that's what the dockument says. And I seriously doubt that F-4 could detect another F-4 at 90km. Could be wrong though

 

F-4's detected MiG-21s just taking off from over 50nm just fine when they were testing the captured aircraft in Nevada.  I forget the exact radar version but I do recall is had a 34" parabolic dish - so 'newer' radar for that time, but less capable than an APG-63.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TotenDead said:

What does that mess of planes mean? Does the radar have ~85nm detection range against T-33

Yes, it means that at one test point, a lookdown hot aspect shot, it detected a T-33 at 85nm. This is just test data, its not representing the absolute limit. You arent gonna be able to test every possible range/aspect/lookdown/lookup combination. Anyway, whether it seems "plausible" to you, its what was actually observed during testing, so id be inclined to believe that over what "feels" right 🙂


Edited by dundun92

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 часа назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

It's not only reasonable, it is the only way you get the radar range superiority that's supposed to be there vs. F-16s and F-18s, and that superiority is absolutely there. 

Which F-16 and 18 are you referring to?  Anyway, there're non speculative numbers in MiG-29 and Su-27s manuals, here atm i can see only guesses and interpretations of some kind of tests. And, of course, that "90km against F-4" document. 

4 часа назад, GGTharos сказал:

And let me re-iterate:  The 160nm setting on the radar is there for reason, and that reason is not just 'to see bombers at 90nm'.

 

Yes, it's so that it could see a GROUP of bombers in that galaxy far-far away. MiG-29 can show targets up to 500km away... Also for a reason, as far as i understand 😉

 

4 часа назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

F-4's detected MiG-21s just taking off from over 50nm just fine when they were testing the captured aircraft in Nevada.  I forget the exact radar version but I do recall is had a 34" parabolic dish - so 'newer' radar for that time, but less capable than an APG-63.

 

Maybe so, okay, don't really want to dig into that atm. Now we might better focus F-15s radar

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2021 at 1:53 PM, TotenDead said:

guesses and interpretations

Actual tests showing that the APG-63 can detect a T-33 at 85nm hot, lookdown is somehow "guesses and interpretations"? Heck, id take actual test results over manual numbers in many cases because thats actually accounts for environmental variables, which theoreitcal numbers dont alawys.

 

Also, you can compare to the F-14 radar to get a feel for how powerful the F-15 radar is, it has a higher peak power and the same size dish as the AWG-9. They also both use HPRF. The AWG-9 is quoted at 90nm vs 5m^2 in PD TWS/RWS. So, again, 85nm for 6m^2 is very reasonable and expected for the F-15s radar, infact for post PSP this would be rather conservative.

 

 

  • Like 2

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Which F-16 and 18 are you referring to?  Anyway, there're non speculative numbers in MiG-29 and Su-27s manuals, here atm i can see only guesses and interpretations of some kind of tests. And, of course, that "90km against F-4" document. 

 

There aren't any guesses regarding the fact there is detection.   As for that document, it's about an APG-63 mounted on an Aurora intended for surface detection and using a different antenna configuration.

 

Quote

Yes, it's so that it could see a GROUP of bombers in that galaxy far-far away. MiG-29 can show targets up to 500km away... Also for a reason, as far as i understand 😉

 

No, it can't.   Why are you complaining about guesses and interpretations and then insert your own?

 

Quote

Maybe so, okay, don't really want to dig into that atm. Now we might better focus F-15s radar

 

Of course you don't, that would damage your narrative here.   The F-15 can detect a T-33 85nm away head-on.    It's not really all that look-down, it's reasonably co-alt in tis graph so ground clutter wouldn't be an issue.

 

And that's with the pre-PSP radar.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 часов назад, dundun92 сказал:

Actual tests showing that the APG-63 can detect a T-33 at 85nm hot, lookdown is somehow "guesses and interpretations"?

 

We have no way of knowing what was that T-33 carrying. It could've flown with corner reflectors to simulate another aircraft. Correct me if I'm wrong and there's written what was that T-33 carrying and what were the circumstances of detection. As for me, the info is still not valid. Show me ranges from flight manual and i won't have any doubts. Look, like these

 

ulQM4QX.png

 

5 часов назад, dundun92 сказал:

Heck, id take actual test results over manual numbers in many cases because thats actually accounts for environmental variables, which theoreitcal numbers dont alawys.

 

Дальше по-русски, устал думать и переводить) Испытания показали сколько обнаружений на дальности в 90 миль на фоне земли? Одно? Я уже говорил, что мы не знаем всех условий, мануал же показывает среднюю картину в плане обнаружений, основанную не на одном испытании, а на серии.

 

5 часов назад, dundun92 сказал:

Also, you can compare to the F-14 radar to get a feel for how powerful the F-15 radar is, it has a higher peak power and the same size dish as the AWG-9. They also both use HPRF. The AWG-9 is quoted at 90nm vs 5m^2 in PD TWS/RWS. So, again, 85nm for 6m^2 is very reasonable and expected for the F-15s radar, infact for post PSP this would be rather conservative.

 

Я бы не занимался таким сравнением. На дальность обнаружения влияют не только размеры полотна и мощность.

 

5 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

There aren't any guesses regarding the fact there is detection.   As for that document, it's about an APG-63 mounted on an Aurora intended for surface detection and using a different antenna configuration.

 

Ок, допустим

5 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

No, it can't.   Why are you complaining about guesses and interpretations and then insert your own?

 

Я использую твой уровень аргументации) "Есть причина" Там есть возможность установить дальность на 500 км, значит, по твоей логике, РЛС не просто так можно на такой режим выставить.

 

5 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Of course you don't, that would damage your narrative here. 


Нет, мне лень гуглить. В любом случае, аргументация уровня "тут все хорошо потому что там РЛС могла видеть на столько далеко" - это хреновая аргументация. Реальные значения должны быть в мануале для летчика Ф-15 
 

5 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 The F-15 can detect a T-33 85nm away head-on.    It's not really all that look-down, it's reasonably co-alt in tis graph so ground clutter wouldn't be an issue.

Тогда почему он нарисован на фоне земли?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same document.  This range is a range calculated by making some assumptions and not with knowledge of the radar.   The entire paper is centered around computing MPRF algorithms, and the main interest is detecting targets on the ground.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Я бы не занимался таким сравнением. На дальность обнаружения влияют не только размеры полотна и мощность.

I know that, the point is that they are radars from a similar era on comparable aircraft, that also have similar specs for two important physical characteristics, its not supposed to be a perfect comparison. Its to give a ballpark at where we should reasonably be expecting the APG-63 to see, e.g, its not gonna be like 50-60nm vs 5m^2 (like in game rn).

 

  • Like 1

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TotenDead said:

We have no way of knowing what was that T-33 carrying. It could've flown with corner reflectors to simulate another aircraft. Correct me if I'm wrong and there's written what was that T-33 carrying and what were the circumstances of detection. As for me, the info is still not valid. Show me ranges from flight manual and i won't have any doubts. Look, like these

 

You're really grasping at straws here.  If you're going to go in this direction, then I consider your manual's ranges invalid, because they would not make physical sense by comparison.

 

Quote

I would not do such a comparison. The detection range is influenced not only by the size of the web and the power.

 

Even if you're trying to be pedantic, you can't dismiss this comparison.  Both are AI radars, both have effectively the same purpose and are similarly constructed.  They have relatively similar power, so you're really losing reasons why you could not compare them.  Yes, you can make an argument hat they're not the same equipment and they won't have the exact same performance - I'll agree, it won't be the exact same.   But it will be very similar, and if you try to make an argument that we should ignore this very, very likely possibility you start losing credibility.

 

Quote

Then why is it drawn against the background of the earth?

 

It isn't drawn against the background of the earth, it's drawn 'lower altitude than the eagle' but it isn't a proper look-down detection.  So it is 'below the horizon' yes, but not in clutter.

 

In the graph the eagle is at 15000', and the T-33 is probably around 14000'.   Not low enough to be in clutter, the curvature of the earth at that point is some 7000' or less.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 3

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GGTharos said:

But it will be very similar, and if you try to make an argument that we should ignore this very, very likely possibility you start losing credibility.

It might be that but you can't tell how close it is. I just hope the devs have access to something better at least from military source and actual F-15C installed radar and software. I mean the document from @TaxDollarsAtWork is basically a student's work.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

You're really grasping at straws here.  If you're going to go in this direction, then I consider your manual's ranges invalid, because they would not make physical sense by comparison.

 

 

Even if you're trying to be pedantic, you can't dismiss this comparison.  Both are AI radars, both have effectively the same purpose and are similarly constructed.  They have relatively similar power, so you're really losing reasons why you could not compare them.  Yes, you can make an argument hat they're not the same equipment and they won't have the exact same performance - I'll agree, it won't be the exact same.   But it will be very similar, and if you try to make an argument that we should ignore this very, very likely possibility you start losing credibility.

 

 

It isn't drawn against the background of the earth, it's drawn 'lower altitude than the eagle' but it isn't a proper look-down detection.  So it is 'below the horizon' yes, but not in clutter.

 

In the graph the eagle is at 15000', and the T-33 is probably around 14000'.   Not low enough to be in clutter, the curvature of the earth at that point is some 7000' or less.

 

This is for the original APG-63 correct and not post MSIP?  Didn't MSIP retrofit eagles with an improved -63 that increased the radars detection range somewhat or am I remembering this wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, draconus said:

It might be that but you can't tell how close it is. I just hope the devs have access to something better at least from military source and actual F-15C installed radar and software. I mean the document from @TaxDollarsAtWork is basically a student's work.

 

How far could it be?  I mean given that the technology and power is similar, as well as the antenna size, can you give a solid reason for it to differ by more than 10%, please?   As for the thesis, yep, it's a thesis and wasn't concerned with the actual range of radar but mostly about PRF selection.  It's a good document and you can get information from it ... just not about radar range, but rather radar range relative to PRF selection.

 

And, the test document is the results of a test.   While we'd like to know more about this test, the information is pretty solid.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...