GGTharos Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 Interesting article about 1/2 way down ... http://www.protonriver.com/archives/airforce/af_2.html James :shock: Nice find, Kula ... you mean the huge diatribe about radars and other things, right? [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
Kula66 Posted March 5, 2005 Author Posted March 5, 2005 Yes ... particularly the comments on AMRAAM v Adder James
GGTharos Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 Yeah ... I'd take those with a -bit- of a grain of salt, though ... according to SK's minizap the adder underperforms only by 2-3nm at long ranges compared to the AMRAAM. [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
Kula66 Posted March 5, 2005 Author Posted March 5, 2005 Also says AMRAAM is an air-breather ... I'm fairly sure thats wrong/typo. Interested to know if the heavier missiles having a more difficult time manauvering is modelled accurately ... in 1.1 demo, I've seen AA-10Cs (a really heavy lump) do really viscous S turns ... and keep their speed up ... doesn't seem right. Also AMRAAMs seem much less deadly, or is it that the AI is better at dodgng than before? James
GGTharos Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 The missile physics in lock on are in general not very accurate. It looks like inertia is missing, or something of the sort ... the AMRAAMs seem to have been short-changed in terms of their available range. And yes, you're right, I've no idea what he mens by 'the AMRAAM is an air breather' ... wtf? :P It's a rocket, not a ramjet. He seems to know his stuff about radars but ... i dunno. SK, can you shed any light on this, maybe? [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
Starlight Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 about the original topic: I've found in the book "Jane's How to fly and fight in the F-14 Tomcat" by David Rockwell these data when talking about the AWG-9 radar installed aboard the F-14: The AWG-9 radar is quoted to have a power of 10,200 Watts, versus the 5,200 Watts of the APG-63 (I think these figures are about early F-15 radar versions) In the same book there is a quite detailed explanation of F-14's radar modes and also there is an estimate of the range at which the AIM-54 Phoenix goes active: 9-14 nm (14-22 km) for its onboard DSQ-26 radar. I wonder how accurate are these estimates, and how did the author get them. Ok, the Phoenix/Tomcat weapon system is being retired but this book was printed in 1999!
Kula66 Posted March 7, 2005 Author Posted March 7, 2005 Thanks, sounds like a book with a good level of info ... James
Recommended Posts