Jump to content

F-15C radar changes


henshao

Recommended Posts

I don't know where ya'll are getting your info that the APG-70 is worse than the 63v1. They are essentially the same for air to air performance. The 63v1 replaces several of the old APG-63 components with APG-70 components and keeps some things from the OG 63 like the antenna. This was to improve the mean time between failure and reliability of the 25 year old APG-63's and make it so that more modern and easily accessible parts were what were being acquired to keep them running. For all intents and purposes their performance is the same.

Don't know what the comment about usability has to do with anything. The F-15E's HOTAS and interface from the front seat works exactly the same and is modelled after the APG-63 in the F-15C... its nothing like the F-14A/B where you MUST operate it from the backseat.


Edited by KlarSnow
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's not like a radar that is dedicated only to searching for flying targets has different characteristics of the beam and the antenna itself than a radar that is also supposed to search for targets on the ground? I do not know, but I assume that the algorithm of sifting interference, target selection, and their classification are completely different, and each "additional" element in the work or software slows down the operation of the device. If the AN/APG-70 - in its entirety and not its elements mixed with the AN/APG-63 - after switching from A-G to A-A mode bypasses everything related to A-G in its entirety, I can assume that it is the same.
However, I bet that mounting the F-15E radar instead of the AN/APG-63 v.3 in the last F-15Cs was rather the result of saving money when it was known that these were the last planes with no prospects of maintaining them long enough to invest in further development and modernization of the AN/APG-63

I always assumed that if something is for everything - in this case for A-A and A-G, it is weaker than dedicated solutions. I'm probably wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah there is no trade off.

The APG-63, 63v1 and 70 are capable of Low PRF, which is what you use for ground mapping. All have been since the beginning of the family. There is no detriment to the air to air capabilities at all by improving the air to ground capabilities.
The original APG-63 and the 63v1 had air to ground mapping functionality as well btw. May have never been used but it was there.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KlarSnow said:

Yeah there is no trade off.

The APG-63, 63v1 and 70 are capable of Low PRF, which is what you use for ground mapping. All have been since the beginning of the family. There is no detriment to the air to air capabilities at all by improving the air to ground capabilities.
The original APG-63 and the 63v1 had air to ground mapping functionality as well btw. May have never been used but it was there.

The question is whether the A-G mode capabilities were "programmed" outside the tests or only the radar had such capabilities but on board the "operational" F-15C was not prepared to handle them? The lack of "extra" lines of code or algorithms may affect the work of the whole - e.g. on the speed of data processing.

I don't know, I'm guessing/combine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/19/2022 at 3:49 PM, falcon_120 said:

I dont complain, it's a new life for the F15 as it's the only plane (except the F14/Phoenix combo) able to do very long range; 50/60nm, amraam shots, thus regaining their BVR 1st place again over the viper/hornet.

Obviously not having a link16 it's a big handicap that oblige you so much harder to work on the SA from other sources, but it's fun. But what is important is that between 60nm and 35 nm, and above angles 30, the eagle can dispute the sky and the F16/f18 cannot fight back unless they go low and put themselves in a defensive position.

Also apparently the F15 does not currently suffer from those absurd look-down penalties applied to the F16/f18 radars.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Good for you I guess. Their plane is wrong and needs fixing, and its still even under-performing compared to the FIRST APG-63, which isn't even what they were attempting to model!

On 11/20/2022 at 9:23 AM, KlarSnow said:

I don't know where ya'll are getting your info that the APG-70 is worse than the 63v1. They are essentially the same for air to air performance. The 63v1 replaces several of the old APG-63 components with APG-70 components and keeps some things from the OG 63 like the antenna. This was to improve the mean time between failure and reliability of the 25 year old APG-63's and make it so that more modern and easily accessible parts were what were being acquired to keep them running. For all intents and purposes their performance is the same.

Don't know what the comment about usability has to do with anything. The F-15E's HOTAS and interface from the front seat works exactly the same and is modelled after the APG-63 in the F-15C... its nothing like the F-14A/B where you MUST operate it from the backseat.

 

Wonderful
I think it's worth pointing out to all the anons that it actually has an APG-63v1 according to ED's own manual for the F-15C
image.png
nullIt certainly would be nice if Razbam shares some of that APG-70 info with ED so the radar will be correct.

On 11/20/2022 at 8:23 PM, GGTharos said:

It was capable.   The point is really,  "Not a pound for air to ground".

Giga Boomer cope over a stupid airforce decisions, should've tried to buy a Strike Eagle like plane in the mid 70s
It was all up to the customer and countries like Israel had the foresight to make their F-15A/Cs into bomb trucks as well as ASFs

A little off topic but all of this makes me wish we were getting a Slam Eagle or better yet F-15I Ra'am, hero of Op Outside the box
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

 

Giga Boomer cope over a stupid airforce decisions, should've tried to buy a Strike Eagle like plane in the mid 70s
It was all up to the customer and countries like Israel had the foresight to make their F-15A/Cs into bomb trucks as well as ASFs

A little off topic but all of this makes me wish we were getting a Slam Eagle or better yet F-15I Ra'am, hero of Op Outside the box
 

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gahab141 said:

Lol. The "great success" was purely due to numerical and tech superiority over the opposing Force. Nothing to do with "the move"

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue gulf war '91 was the greatest projection of power in the history of man; one of the most heavily fortified countries on earth at the time was successfully overthrown by another country 7000 miles away. There is another conflict going on currently between bordering countries that isn't nearly so one-sided. In combination with other assets, the F-15's perfect game in the air established complete air dominance. "Not a pound for air to ground" honestly applies more to the pilot than the machine, as McDonnell basically built in a mach 2 A-7 into the F-15A as mentioned. It's a lot easier to make fighter into a bomber than the other way around. But USAF has 50 different ways to put warheads on foreheads, they could afford to reserve one platform in particular to be completely unencumbered mentally by anything besides its primary mission.

The F-15's combination of attributes, including the eye of sauron radar, kinematic performance, maneuvering ability, and profuse payload proved to be the right call. If you examine what a kill chain requires in air to air combat you will see the Eagle is top tier at every step. It finds them, identifies them as hostile, intercepts them, successfully attacks them and avoids harm to itself in the process.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

But you're just biased

So are you.

There's a reason why F-15s smashed through the opposition without losses, and it isn't numbers or support assets.  Those help, but in the end they had ample opportunities to get shot down and survived several merges, and that reason is training as @henshao and @F-2 correctly identified.

The lessons of AIMVAL/ACEVAL were not in vain, and it was made very clear that 'low threat' aircraft can be 'high threat' as long as they can equip all-aspect missiles and get themselves into WVR, which happened in real combat.

 

And what does any of this have to do with DCS eagle radar changes anyway?


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 2

[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 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

There's a reason why F-15s smashed through the opposition without losses, and it isn't numbers or support assets.

Well I could name actually several reasons, aside from obviously better electronics base and numeric superiority on all levels(tactically, operationally and strategically), but I believe the single most important factor was: Адольф Георгиевич Толкачёв.

As for F-15c and no causalities, it depends what you define your loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The results of AIMVAL/ACEVAL and their inclusion in training, as well as quantity and quality of training and the fact that there was 'no pound for air to ground' are the defining factors.   Like I said, the eagles had plenty of opportunities to get shot down and they came close more than once.

The factors leading to this are pretty much the same as they were in older times:  Need to get closer to positively ID or otherwise compressed timelines for a number of reasons.

Everyone wants to point to numbers and traitors and technology ... all of these are factors, but numbers weren't 'a thing' in individual engagements, nor are traitors where electronics aren't 'saving the day' (or are they?  we're not told).  If anything, the technology was on the side of MiG-29 wielders inside certain ranges because eagles had no HOBS capability at that time.   In the end it all comes down to having specialized air to air fighter pilots with robust and plentiful training.

And no it doesn't depend on what's defined as loss.  No light greys have been lost in combat so far.


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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