Jump to content

F-14D??


OnionSpider13

Recommended Posts

 

Further more regarding performance You just stated yourself that the it uses the same dish as the AWG-9 and that the the 63 and 70 are comparable in A2A if that’s the case I don’t understand how more screens and digital radar gives you this tremendous edge over the older set. What exactly is the difference, what can the 71 do in A2A modes that 9 can’t. Whatever it is it can’t be that critical since the AWG-9 was used right up until 06 on everything except the D however the Fire control system was retrofitted on most jets by the time it retired.

 

It seems like one mattered a lot more then the other, in the eyes of the USN. Otherwise they would have focused on updating all the radars to D standard.

 

because the radar DISH ( or Antenna) isn't everything.

 

its everything else that changed that made very substantial difference. with AWG9's design and being a analog system it would be extremely difficult and impractical to really do any proper modernization. Probably just shy of impossible whilst considering the size constraints. IN essence what your down to is creation of a totally new radar which is essentially what you got when you attach a F14 antenna array to F15E components. ( IE APG71)

 

Although this can still vary, IN a generalized manner to break it down these are major components in current radars. Hyperlinks included so you can read through and thus understand what each components main role is.

 

Antenna

 

 

Receiver

 

 

Exciter

 

 

(To note: sometimes can be integrated as 1 component as both Receiver/Exciter )

 

 

Transmitter

 

 

Radar Data processor

 

 

Radar signal Processor

 

 

 

The Tomcat also had components that fulfilled similar purpose but due to analog nature, and more inefficient design relative to what was already possible for radars in the early to mid 70s. AWg9 had 19 components as opposed to the F15A/C which had 9 ( last is technically just cockpit radar control box, so practically just 8 ) and to further streamlined lighter weight fighters like F16 and F/A18 which only had 5.

 

Remember that despite being still very good radar system at the time of its introduction relative to what any other country had in their fighters the AWG9 system is still 1960s radar technology. it was not the sort of cutting edge stuff for radar tech that they pursued when designing the Eagle's radar system which no doubt also had the benefit of being a few years younger in its conception.

 

Although it was major requirement point it wasn't just a matter of addressing the needs of streamlined components, or increasing mean time between failures, and ease of reliability. APG63 and later radars all had increased performance for A2A alone purely because of ability to utilize the Medium PRF. Medium PRF allows a radar to have reliable all aspect detection. AWG9 system could only use Low and High PRF. IN Although the Tomcats could detect targets longer ranges than APG63. they had inferior ability reliably track targets rear or side aspects. because of how these modes work. Although AWG9 is still a pulse Doppler radar capable thus capable of ignoring ground clutter reflection on radar scope display, nonetheless its ability to actually track targets among ground clutter interference was still not as good as APG63 and successors. Furthermore those radars could also RAID assessment modes, to verify against close formation targets as multiples and not confuse them as single unit. Not to mention considerable improvements in radar signal processing speeds due to the digitization.

 

Now see this all good enough capability for typical bomber intercept work given the Tomcats Fleet defense role in an open sea, but it certainly means the radar is not quite as good for low altitude intercepts deep inland, or for Fighter vs Fighter CAP, nor is it as future proof option due to its design limitations any sort of upgrades in the digital spectrum.

 

In short the F15's APG63 was so influential in mechanical Array radar designs utilizing much more cutting edge tech for its time all the whilst breaking records in reliability that it would be what the legacy of John Browning's 1911 handgun meant in the world of firearms.

 

This is precisely why the APG71 was still a significant upgrade in capability over the AWG9, even if you only look at A2A aspects.

 

The problem was budgetary. IF the Navy had the budget they would have either refitted APG71 into F14B's if not outright built more F14D's, which in the latter case IRRC was exactly what they wanted. BUt as we know contracts for tomcat production cancelled. and funding for the fleet reduced and eventually forced the entire tomcat fleet into retirement earlier than expected. So they navy couldn't be picky, all those ancient F14A and B's would still have to make do until retirement.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright then you guys enlighten me, why is the documentation secret, if the information is worthless and the WCS is so outdated? Why can’t they get their hands on it.

 

Because it doesn't need to be declassified.

 

Also the fire control system handles the interface between the weapons and the WCS which includes the radar. It handles the data link and target hand off to the weapons. It’s pretty important, It’s how you get the weapons where you want them to go. The radar is just a sensor without it. And the fire control system is what changed when we go from A/B to B(U), I.E. when we go from publicly available too secret. Never mind APG-71.

 

I think we're getting confused about some nomenclature here. The AWG-9 is the system that handles radar detection, correlation, tracking and prioritization. It's not just the emitter and dish. My understanding is the AWG-15 takes information from the AWG-9 via the CSDC and configures weapons for release.

 

Further more regarding performance You just stated yourself that the it uses the same dish as the AWG-9 and that the the 63 and 70 are comparable in A2A if that’s the case I don’t understand how more screens and digital radar gives you this tremendous edge over the older set.

 

This is like saying that a computer with a new i9 and a computer with a Pentium 4 are comparable because they use the same monitor. The AWG-9 is an analogue radar set with a few digital processors handling specific tasks for PD modes and TWS. Things like gain control, how sensitive the radar is to returns, how it handles clutter are all achieved by physical devices actually manipulating the analog electrical signals. This means to make drastic changes you have to physically alter the radar by swapping in new components.

 

The APG-71 is a digital set, those same functions are achieved by digitally manipulating what is received by the radar using higher powered computers. Major updates are implemented via software that can be uploaded with much less hassle and supply chain.

 

What this gives you is a radar that is able to react faster and better to what a target is doing. You have better gain control, better clutter rejection, better ECCM, are better able to determine what is a contact and what is noise, and better able to track it throughout the entire envelope.

 

All PD modes on an AWG-9 have a doppler notch of something like +/- 100 knots. Pulse, which is LPRF is range limited.

 

The APG-71 has a notch that's something below 20 knots or so, due to better processing and using MRPF.

 

What exactly is the difference, what can the 71 do in A2A modes that 9 can’t. Whatever it is it can’t be that critical since the AWG-9 was used right up until 06 on everything except the D however the Fire control system was retrofitted on most jets by the time it retired.

 

MRPF, better tracking of targets at all aspects without resorting to pulse which means less workload for the RIO and better tracking of notching targets at range. RWS that is more reliable than the AWG-9s (not an issue in DCS), more reliable TWS tracks and TWS search options that are able to be divorced of the two second scan interval forced on the AWG-9. More reliable PD-STT that can track a target closer to the notch. Things like radar memory to anticipate where a contact will reappear after the notch.

 

It's not completely accurate analogy, but imagine all the nice things the F/A-18s radar does for you, now give it greater power output and range and that's a decent enough approximation as a starting point. It'll become clearer still when Razbam does their F-15E.

 

 

It seems like one mattered a lot more then the other, in the eyes of the USN. Otherwise they would have focused on updating all the radars to D standard.

 

Upgrading the stores system to be able to talk to JDAMs is a much cheaper proposition than a fleet wide wholesale radar replacement. In an era where the aircraft's primary role had shifted from fleet air defense to long range precision ground attack via the LANTIRN pod, the AWG-9 was sufficient to needs.

 

If the Navy, or rather Tomcat community, were able to do everything it wanted in the 90s, the entire F-14 fleet would have been replaced wholesale with F-14Ds flinging AIM-120s and HARMs over all and sundry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I'm fine with the B in most aspects, but what I'd really like to see (if a D is out of the question) is a version with DFCS. The Sparrowhawk HUD would be a nice to have, but our current variant can really be a pain to fly even compared to the entirely analog jets (F-5, for one) that we have in DCS. I'll swallow my pride here and just straight-up admit that I do not like having to be active on the rudder pedals and have still not quite gotten the hang of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the B in most aspects, but what I'd really like to see (if a D is out of the question) is a version with DFCS. The Sparrowhawk HUD would be a nice to have, but our current variant can really be a pain to fly even compared to the entirely analog jets (F-5, for one) that we have in DCS. I'll swallow my pride here and just straight-up admit that I do not like having to be active on the rudder pedals and have still not quite gotten the hang of it.

 

Maybe it's because that F5 does not have the power/aerodynamics/lift to enter those edge-of-envelope regions. :lol:

 

But I'd like to see the D as well just to have a chance to play with those MFD's, ground radars and other fancy modern toys when I wanted to. I have both the F16 and 18 but don't like the way how they fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I would love to see the F-14D. Take my money now. 😄 I could be wrong but I believe I heard in an interview that the D used the HUD from the Hornet. I wonder if ED would allow HB to utilize the work they already completed? If hypothetically HB were committed to giving us the D model at some point.
 

In any case it’s nice to hear that HB is setting out to make the Typhoon a reality. About time the Brits got an aircraft.


Edited by IRememberJeep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2020 at 1:17 AM, eatthis said:

were getting a typhoon but no f14d, makes me a very sad panda 😞

Sad pandas make me cry 😞

 

As a virtual F-14B pilot, I certainly would love to have at least airspeed and basic altitude symbolism on my hud, heh.  It'd be nice, but know it's not true to the B.  I've heard the F-14BU's (Upgrade variants) had multiple configurations regarding mfds, etc..  Was this true pre-BUs, as well, or just for the F-14BUs?  I'm curious to what tech would be allowed from those or near versions 🙂

--=_Flying Since LOMAC_=--


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OnionSpider13 said:

Wow, I started this post over 2 years ago.  It's still going? ...and can I delete it?  lol

 

If you delete this one, another will just appear. You cannot kill that which has no life!

  • Like 3

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fat creason said:

 

If you delete this one, another will just appear. You cannot kill that which has no life!

 

Once I'll have the FAQ up, we'll likely get threads à la: "Is the FAQ serious about there not being a D in development any time soon? What about a little later?" 😆

We love you guys. 🙂

Just a note, maybe: if you all wrote the government as frequently, asking to declassify what we'd need, as frequently as you ask us if there would be a D, they might budge and we might be able to do it afterall... 😅 (that's a joke, don't want to start a mass petition in the US here haha).

  • Like 4

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too late I'm hitting them up.  And my Congressman. 

  • Like 4

Specs & Wishlist:

 

Core i9 9900k 5.0Ghz, Asus ROG Maximus XI Hero, 64GB G.Skill Trident 3600, Asus RoG Strix 3090 OC, 2TB x Samsung Evo 970 M.2 boot. Samsung Evo 860 storage, Coolermaster H500M, ML360R AIO

 

HP Reverb G2, Samsung Odyssey+ WMR; VKB Gunfighter 2, MCG Pro; Virpil T-50CM v3; Slaw RX Viper v2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/18/2020 at 5:17 AM, IronMike said:

 

Once I'll have the FAQ up, we'll likely get threads à la: "Is the FAQ serious about there not being a D in development any time soon? What about a little later?" 😆

We love you guys. 🙂

Just a note, maybe: if you all wrote the government as frequently, asking to declassify what we'd need, as frequently as you ask us if there would be a D, they might budge and we might be able to do it afterall... 😅 (that's a joke, don't want to start a mass petition in the US here haha).

When will US government declassify the D model as per traditional rule? in 2050? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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