Is the F-15 really that good

Very good and valid points there.

 

However one feels that because of those circumstances at Desert Storm, the Tomcat was somewhat denied the opportunity to show its full potential...

 

But could the Eagle's radar (from that era) detect and lock onto a given target, from as far as the Tomcat's AWG-9 ?

Besides, neither the Eagle's AIM-7 or AIM-120 had the reach of the Tomcat's AIM-154.

(Ok, I know the AIM-120 is more maneuverable and reliable against fighters.)

 

Regarding 9 G's and T/W, I remember reading that, Eagle pilots admited that even the F-14A could give them problems when fighting low and slow.

 

Was the F-14 and E-2 Hawkeye coordination / performance that much below the F-15 and E-3 Sentry ?

US Navy was not integrated with joint command. Navy was meant to act as independent force in case of war against USSR. USAF was integrated that's why the role of their assets was dominant compared to Navy in Desert Storm.

When it comes to close air combat capability F-14 and F-15 read about conclusions of Israeli commission sent to US with selected pilots to test and select F-14 or F-15 for IAF. They tested both types extensively against their own fighters in close in combat and BVR. In short F-15A (with wings rated for 7.3G) had significant advantage in maneuver air combat.

That's why IAF with it's confined air space predicting many close air dogfights selected F-15A.

When Iran, a year earlier with it's vast and often deserted territory to defend against potential Iraqi strikes selected F-14A.

And history proven both Israel and Iran did the right thing chosing differently.

About AIM-54 BVR against nimble tactical fighters - you can read in depth summary of ACEVAL/AIMVAL hundreds of simulated fights. In short - pilots were successful notching and breaking AWG-9 lock denying the range advantage.

On the other hand Iranians successfully employed AIM-54 against Iraq tactical airplanes achieving many hits.

When it comes to close air combat capability F-14 and F-15 read about conclusions of Israeli commission sent to US with selected pilots to test and select F-14 or F-15 for IAF. They tested both types extensively against their own fighters in close in combat and BVR. In short F-15A (with wings rated for 7.3G) had significant advantage in maneuver air combat.

Literally everyone wrote about why one was better than the other at that time. All come to the conclusion that Brand X will beat Brand Y every time. I've read a lot of it I put no faith in any of it.

About AIM-54 BVR against nimble tactical fighters - you can read in depth summary of AIMWAL/ACEWAL hundreds of simulated fights. In short - pilots were successful notching and breaking AWG-9 lock denying the range advantage.

On the other hand Iranians successfully employed AIM-54 against Iraq tactical airplanes achieving many hits.

Phoenix wasn't allowed in ACEVAL/AIMVAL. One of the outbrief items was a Phoenix-like capability in a Sparrow-sized missile was highly desirable to counter an all-aspect packing adversary. That became a funded requirement which became AMRAAM, though it took another 15 years to get the first rounds delivered.

Why the notching was so effective was because it trashed AIM-7 shots, denying the BVR advantage of the F-14/F-15 and forcing them close, where all aircraft now had face-shooting AIM-9s, and the power/maneuverability advantages of the F-14/F-15 were mostly nullified in part because of their large size/ease of visibility and modeled missile performance. As it stood, with the same "VID before shoot" rules in ACE/AIM, the furthest shots that could typically be taken were inside of 8NM with the Sparrow (average head-on ID for an F-5 using TVSU in the Tomcat and rifle scopes in the F-15).

I think the basic idea is that technology makes the exchange ratio in BVR, once WVR it comes so close to 1:1 regardless of technology - basically furballs are things you don't want to be in, which is why there are acceptable merge ratio rules in combat. If you're not 1v1, 2v1 or whatever the choice is (dictated by whatever you need to accomplish), you'll avoid the merge.

But could the Eagle's radar (from that era) detect and lock onto a given target, from as far as the Tomcat's AWG-9 ?

Easily. Size (both use a 36" flat slotted array dish) and power were similar, and the APG-63 had gone through a lot of upgrades by then. While the AWG-9 also received upgrades, I don't know if they were as extensive as the APG-63's.

Besides, neither the Eagle's AIM-7 or AIM-120 had the reach of the Tomcat's AIM-54.

(Ok, I know the AIM-120 is more maneuverable and reliable against fighters.)

It also didn't matter. Most (but not all) of the engagements that eagles got into ended up close range anyway due to rules, closer than you'd expect for 7/120 shots.

There's one engagement where the 54 may have made a difference, and that was a fight where MiG-25s and eagles had it out and basically no one won.

Another possibility were the fighters that were running away across the border, the Phoenix would have had a bit longer reach than a sparrow in a tail-chase.

Was the F-14 and E-2 Hawkeye coordination / performance that much below the F-15 and E-3 Sentry ?

That's probably not something we'll know :/

Easily. Size (both use a 36" flat slotted array dish) and power were similar..

Interesting - I don't know much about these fighters, but are you sure about that GGTharos?

From what I can remember having read in regards to the radars in question, the APG-63 has a dish diameter of some 900mm(which corresponds to your 36 inches) and a peak output of about 5 Kw. But while the AWG-9 apparently has a dish of same size(and type), IIRC the power output is *much* higher... ~10 Kw peak.

While the AWG-9 also received upgrades, I don't know if they were as extensive as the APG-63's.

Neither do I, but they did make the APG-71(for F-14D), which essentially is an AWG-9 with electronic parts(digital signal- and data processors) from the APG-70.

Interesting - I don't know much about these fighters, but are you sure about that GGTharos?

 

From what I can remember having read in regards to the radars in question, the APG-63 has a dish diameter of some 900mm(which corresponds to your 36 inches) and a peak output of about 5 Kw. But while the AWG-9 apparently has a dish of same size(and type), IIRC the power output is *much* higher... ~10 Kw peak.

13kw peak for the 63.

13kw peak for the 63.

Wow! - never realised that it was that powerful.

Wow! - never realised that it was that powerful.

MiG-23ML N-003E radar peak power is 40 kW and Sapfir-23E (MiG-23MF) peak power is 70 kW. MiG-25 radar is somewhere 450-600 kW peak power.

Is there a source for any of these numbers? For the APG-63 I've got 5.2kW compared to 10.2kW for the AWG-9[1]. Granted, the APG-63 has seen a LOAD of improvements over the years, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got a more powerful transmitter at some point, but I haven't seen any figures to indicate 13kW.

Those figures for the Russian radars seem to show an extraordinarily inefficient use of power; I'm wondering if it has to do with the vacuum tube technology used? According to Yefim Gordon's book on the MiG-25 and MiG-31, the S-25 radar in the MiG-25PD "was capable of detecting targets with a radar cross section (RCS) of 16m2 (172.16ft2) at more than 100km (62.5 miles) range."[2] Given the AWG-9's 10.2kW, and TWS capability against a 5m2 target at about 90NM, the S-25 is outputting 59x the power (at peak) for detection of a target over 3x the size at about 2/3rds the range. Then again, power isn't everything, but that is an interesting point of comparison to me at least.

References:

1. Jon Lake, ed., Grumman F-14 Tomcat Shipborne Superfighter (London, Aerospace Publishing, 1998 ), 87.

2. Yefim Gordon, Trans. Dimitri Komissarov, MiG-25 'Foxbat' & MiG-31 'Foxbound' Russia's Defensive Front Line (Leicester, Midland Publishing, Ltd., 1997), 24.

Is there a source for any of these numbers? For the APG-63 I've got 5.2kW compared to 10.2kW for the AWG-9[1].

Yes thats what I found as well.

Granted, the APG-63 has seen a LOAD of improvements over the years, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got a more powerful transmitter at some point, but I haven't seen any figures to indicate 13kW.

Those figures for the Russian radars seem to show an extraordinarily inefficient use of power; I'm wondering if it has to do with the vacuum tube technology used? According to Yefim Gordon's book on the MiG-25 and MiG-31, the S-25 radar in the MiG-25PD "was capable of detecting targets with a radar cross section (RCS) of 16m2 (172.16ft2) at more than 100km (62.5 miles) range."[2] Given the AWG-9's 10.2kW, and TWS capability against a 5m2 target at about 90NM, the S-25 is outputting 59x the power (at peak) for detection of a target over 3x the size at about 2/3rds the range. Then again, power isn't everything, but that is an interesting point of comparison to me at least.

I know that the average power of the N007 Zaslon(MiG-31) is 2,5 Kw, which I think would translate to a peak output similar to that of the AWG-9. For comparison the N019 and N001(MiG-29 and Su-27 respectively) have an average output of 1Kw and peak of around 5-6Kw.

I think I read somewhere that the Soviet power output was more related to burning through ECM than increasing detection range. Even then, those numbers are pretty absurd. Then again, radio signal processing is dark magic to me, so I may be completely off :P

.

 

I think Fri13 just forgot a comma on those figures for the N003 and the one for the MiG-25 is just nuts :D

 

I know that the average power of the N007 Zaslon(MiG-31) is 2,5 Kw, which I think would translate to a peak output similar to that of the AWG-9. For comparison the N019 and N001(MiG-29 and Su-27 respectively) have an average output of 1Kw and peak of around 5-6Kw.

No comma missing. Those are numbers from the secret projects forum, from the radars documentation.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mikoyan-mig-23-avionics.25/

The radars has ridiculous peak powers because pure burn through performances. You example can't really jam MiG-25 radar as your jammer doesn't have power to overcome it radar.

But, jamming is dome via other methods too than just power, so you find a way to fool it.

I think I read somewhere that the Soviet power output was more related to burning through ECM than increasing detection range. Even then, those numbers are pretty absurd. Then again, radio signal processing is dark magic to me, so I may be completely off :P

The detection range ain't weak in those radars, as many places the only limitation is the radar scope range scale. As the doctrine was GCI based and you were not allowed to engage targets that GCI didn't confirm and track as well, you didn't need autonomous pilots trying to track targets at hundreds of kilometers ranges.

And while the radars were powerful, they didn't have resolution to get accurate lock for maximum ranges. Like look at the search mode specs. The radar works in fairly low resolution.

Is there a source for any of these numbers? For the APG-63 I've got 5.2kW compared to 10.2kW for the AWG-9[1]. Granted, the APG-63 has seen a LOAD of improvements over the years, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got a more powerful transmitter at some point, but I haven't seen any figures to indicate 13kW.

CP-140 radar upgrade study.

In any case, after going over some APG-63 docs it may as well be 5kw, but there's no real figure listed - rather, heat dissipation rates.

In the F-15 max cooling is anywhere from just under to just over 4kw for air-cooling and just over 8kw for liquid cooling. The eagle's radar is air-cooled, the f-14's liquid cooled. I'm not sure why they're listing liquid cooling for the transmitter. (Edit: Because it requires liquid cooling. So, the total heat dissipation for the radar is 12kw. There's no way it's a 5kw radar in my mind).

The APG-63 radar is described as 'low peak power, high average power', which implies a high duty cycle.

It also brings high peak power figures into question. You can't magically cool a 70kw radar, the cooling has a significant cost in weight and equipment.

So in conclusion: After looking at a bunch of (sometimes confusing) stuff, I don't think that radar can be as low as 5kw. There's too much cooling equipment for such a small radar. At the same time the range tests indicate higher power than 5kw as well.

The idea behind detection is power density and gain: You get higher power density with higher radiated watts and a larger antenna (makes the beam narrower), so you get more watts/sqm. The larger antenna gets more gain for detecting the returned signal.

No comma missing. Those are numbers from the secret projects forum, from the radars documentation.

 

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mikoyan-mig-23-avionics.25/

 

I know where its from :)- still seems wacky to me though.

The radars has ridiculous peak powers because pure burn through performances. You example can't really jam MiG-25 radar as your jammer doesn't have power to overcome it radar.

Well I am glad it looks ridiculous to you too - its not the specific figures themselves, but the magnitude by which they differ from anything else I have ever seen. I just cannot see how they could radiate so much power in the first place and, as GGTharos said, how sufficient cooling could be provided.

But then I am not a radar tehcnician and I really don't know anything at all about early generation Russian radars. My insight to this pretty much begins with the N019, N001 and N007 + newer sets (such as N010 and N011 variants) and for these, the figures are totally different.....the most powerful being the Irbis, which IIRC employs two separate emitters with a combined peak output of some 21 Kw.

But, jamming is dome via other methods too than just power, so you find a way to fool it.

True.

My argument here is that huge, powerful SAM radars are jammed with onboard SPJs. The fighter-borne radar simply doesn't stand a chance, and yes, it is all still power-based because the jammer can radiate a lot more energy than what'll get back to the radar as a reflection from the target.

There are ECCM techniques obviously, but this isn't the thread to go into all that I figure.

I know where its from :)- still seems wacky to me though.

 

 

 

Well I am glad it looks ridiculous to you too - its not the specific figures themselves, but the magnitude by which they differ from anything else I have ever seen. I just cannot see how they could radiate so much power in the first place and, as GGTharos said, how sufficient cooling could be provided.

 

But then I am not a radar tehcnician and I really don't know anything at all about early generation Russian radars. My insight to this pretty much begins with the N019, N001 and N007 + newer sets (such as N010 and N011 variants) and for these, the figures are totally different.....the most powerful being the Irbis, which IIRC employs two separate emitters with a combined peak output of some 21 Kw.

 

 

 

True.

Well, in the context of when these aircraft were designed it makes more sense. During the Vietnam War, when ECM and ECCM was really first deployed in large measure. Prior to ECM deployment enmasse SA-2s vs B-52s had a hit rate, if I am recalling correctly, of about 1 in 60 shots. After large scale deployment of ECM, that number dropped to about 1 in 1000 shots (also drives home the sheer number of missiles being fired at those bombers).

So, aircraft the Soviets were designing/deploying in the mid to late 60s and early 70s had a very clear example of what they were going to be called on to deal with, namely a battle area so heavily saturated with electronic noise as to render weapons virtually ineffective. A frightening notion when considering USA vs USSR would have been a nuclear war, and allowing even one bomber past your lines would potentially result in the deaths of millions. ICBMs were just beginning to enter the field, if I remember correctly, thus the prevalent notion of bombers being a core threat still.

Consequently, Soviet aircraft of the era were designed with radar specifically tuned as overpowered fire control systems, capable of burning through any forseeable ECM field, with sufficient effective range for nominal weapons employment.

You must also consider the context of the GCI references people often make. It's not some backwards ''HODOR!'' mentality, but like with their naval doctrine, much of Soviet warfighting was built around area denial on the assumption they'd have the homefront advantage.

Basically, American doctrine centers on self sufficiency and ''do it all'' because they have to cross major oceans with aircraft carriers to get anywhere to fight. You need to take everything you need with you, because supplies and ''supplmentary capabilities'' are limited. Even Europe is irrelevant, as the bulk of *US* forces are not there, there is no scenario where you don't end up shipping large forces across the open ocean where they have to fend for themselves.

The USSR on the otherhand, did not have this handicap. Attacking the US mainland was largely impossible, and after ICBM development unnecessary. All the fighting the USSR would do would be in Europe. Which they have a land border with. Radar units placed on the border can see hundreds of miles into the interior, well ahead of any ''frontline''. As the line moves forward, so do the radar units. They have no need of carriers, as they never lack access to airbases. As a result there is no NEED for fighters to be able to fend for themselves and function as mini AWACS as a superior land based unit is ALWAYS available, they can focus more on actual weapons employment and dealing with the ECM fields they will encounter.

A notable exception to this early ''rule'' is the Flanker, which afaik was always designed to be more self sufficient... but notice too the key aspect of the Flanker : very long range escort and interdiction, away from easy access to ''help''. It would NOT necessarily have reliable access to ground radar, so by definition it would need to be more self reliant.

While the KW numbers on some of that stuff seems ridiculously disproportionate, it makes perfect sense given the context of the warfighting they were expected to be deployed in.

No, it doesn't make sense. A modest increase in jammer power will very quickly overcome the radar. The jammer has a truly huge advantage:

It travels one-way (unlike two-way for the radar), which means its power varies as the square or the distance, where it varies as the fourth power of the distance for the radar.

Further, the radar looks for a partial reflection of its own power, it's not like a mirror. Yes, some aircraft may have gigantic RCS but you can't depend on that (they can also usually carry gigantic jammers, and if they can't, their escort may), so again the jammer has an advantage.

The response to the denied electronic environment was the IRST and IRH missiles, not ridiculous KWs for the radar.

Well, I guess they just did it to be different then, and there's no really obvious incentive for them at all, it's just magic. A mystery for the sages, surely @@

I mean it has to help a little bit

I just think the figures are very inaccurate and made up. To the tune of 'typoing' a zero after them. It is illogical to believe those figures, so no, they didn't do it to be different, they plain didn't do it but someone decided to believe someone's post on some other forum without thinking about this.

At the very least it's comparing apples to oranges.

Some source might say "The Eagle has a 11 kW radar" just because the power requirement for the radar is 11 kW. As in it's fused for 11 kW.

Or the Tomcat has a 6 kW radar output, as in the actual microwave radiation emitted is 6 kW. Or maybe it's just the power requirement of the antenna itself.

Yet another source might say that the MiG-31 has a 200 kW peak output radar, but that probably just means that it reaches 200 kW for a fraction of a second in the pulses. Much in the same way as there are gigawatt lasers. The actual energy emitted is pretty modest, if it was continuous you'd need a fairly large nuclear powerplant to run such a device.

Yet another source might say that the MiG-31 has a 200 kW peak output radar, but that probably just means that it reaches 200 kW for a fraction of a second in the pulses. Much in the same way as there are gigawatt lasers. The actual energy emitted is pretty modest, if it was continuous you'd need a fairly large nuclear powerplant to run such a device.

The given peak power is not continues emission power. It is the energy per pulse.

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Duty%20cycle.en.html

That is why you can have huge peak powers as you "charge" the radar for the pulse.

You do not need huge power generators to create high peak powers.

The given peak power is not continues emission power. It is the energy per pulse.

 

 

 

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Duty%20cycle.en.html

 

 

 

That is why you can have huge peak powers as you "charge" the radar for the pulse.

 

You do not need huge power generators to create high peak powers.

Yes, that was exactly my point.

Although the peak power is not the same as the energy per pulse. Those are different physical quantities.

I get what you're saying, though. A 200 kW peak power radar firing 100 pulses per second, each with a duration of 500 microseconds, ends up being a 10 kW average power radar. Something like that.

Hi - I know that the F-15 has a kill ratio of more than 100 to nil. So it must be pretty good. But I am used to playing the F-14 and the F-18. I just started playing the F-15 for fun and damn - fast, incredible acceleration and maneuverability. Basically way more impressive than the F-14 or F-18 by far! Is it just because the modelling on this airplane is terrible and OP or is the F-15 really that good in real life?

Superior radar and optimization for the transonic envelope make it possibly the best BVR platform of its era. Add to that the perfectly adequate close quarters capabilities of the platform and the superb training of her crews and yes, she is that good.

If only we had a level of simulation of this bird that would resemble what HB did for the F-14..... just learning all the ways and mods in which the radar could be used would be like a wet dream.