F-18 Bleed Question

For its time, the AWG-9 was very good (extremely good?) for what it was designed for (long range detection of bomber-sized targets and providing mid-course updates for the Phoenix).

It is quite easily outclassed by most of the digital multimode pulse-doppler radars that showed up a couple years after it (like the radars on the F-15, F-16, and F-18). It was powerful in terms of RF energy because of its purpose, but the computing power of the radars that followed it were leaps-and-bounds better than the AWG-9.

Compared to the current-generation AESA radars, it is not even participating in the same sport. Even the APG-63, APG-66, and APG-70 pale in comparison to their AESA younger brethren. The leap on capability is astounding.

Just like a lot of the praise heaped on the Tomcat, it has to be taken in appropriate context. It was a great BVR maritime fleet defender in the 70s and early 80s...but extending the praise beyond that is not necessarily truth data.
 
Good to know...I talked to one F-14 driver (during my days working line) during the phase out of them and he wasn't happy with the F-18 at all or it's radar.

Of course now looking back that may have been hype and guy going to miss his plane that fact...

Now is it true that that F-18 cannot track and lock as many targets as the AWG 9 and also has a short effective range of the radar? Does that even matter any more because we aren't looking at knocking the rooskie bombers out of the sky any more. And our ships can also defend themselves better
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Now is it true that that F-18 cannot track and lock as many targets as the AWG 9 and also has a short effective range of the radar?
Click to expand...

Regarding range, that is the one thing the AWG-9 was specifically designed for: to have lots of power in terms of RF energy, enabling the Tomcat to see bombers at long range (100nm +). None of the digital radars on Eagles, Vipers, or Hornets have quite that same power level as the AWG-9, so they do by definition have a "shorter" range capability in terms of search and track, but do not have a "short" range by any stretch of the imagination.

Can't speak for the Hornet radar, but the APG-70 in the F-15E has the capability to track-while-scan basically equal to the AWG-9. My fuzzy recollection was that the AWG could track 24 targets and shoot at 6 simultaneously. Since I have not used the AWG-9 personally, I don't know what the operational factors for using the AWG-9 are so I can't validate if the APG-70 is better or worse in that regard.

For example, the APG-70 is technically capable of doing that, but I've never been in a situation where I've even had 24 targets to look at, much less the need to shoot at 6 of them at the same time. I can't think of a realistic tactical scenario where that would even be a player, outside of the horde crossing the Fulda Gap in the 1980s. In the typical "4 vs 16" outnumbered air-to-air scenario (where there are 4 "good guys" and 16 "bad guys" fighting each other), the physical expanse of sky those 16 jets are spread out over precludes them from all being on the same radar scope at the same time at ranges which I would want to start shooting at them. I could have the capability to track 200 targets at the same time, and it would be wasted computing power because it just isn't something we'd ever likely see or need the capability to use.

I look at such numbers being thrown around the same way I do when people ask if the F-15 is "really" capable of Mach 2.5. The answer is, yes....sort of. It can go there, but not with any sort of realistic external configuration (ergo, missiles, pylons, pods loaded up) or realistic fuel load. It is kind of an irrelevant number since there isn't a day-to-day possibility that such a performance capability would ever actually be used.

I can tell you that by simple fact that the APG-70 uses digital processing it has better brainpower than the AWG-9 did. Weather or not that translates into more or less targets simultaneously tracked/targeted I can't verify, but I can say that in all likelihood the APG-70 provided higher fidelity on the things it was looking at, and refreshed that data at a much faster rate than the AWG-9. That higher fidelity translates to better capability to guide a missile to a target, which means it is more lethal/effective.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Thanks for the info. Are the radars able differentiate the type of aircraft being tracked? or is that still stuff of fiction?
Click to expand...

Not anything that is appropriate to discuss on an internet forum, unfortunately.

Some clever Google searches might help you find some information in the public domain, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top