AN/APG-65 Radar

F-2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
22 May 2020
Messages
870
Reaction score
1,695

Attachments

  • 558575210-a1-f18ac-742-100-RADAR-SYSTEM-F-A-18.pdf
    8.4 MB · Views: 145
Last edited by a moderator:

APG-73 GROWS FROM FULLY EXPLOITED APG-65​

MICHAEL A. DORNHEIMJUNE 141993
APG-73 GROWS FROM FULLY EXPLOITED APG-65
MICHAEL A. DORNHEIM
LOS ANGELES
The Hughes APG-73 radar, now in developmental flight test, provides a new hardware environment to continue the software evolution of its predecessor, the APG-65.
The APG-73 is expected to succeed the Hughes APG-65 on new McDonnell Douglas F/A-l8 attack fighters next year. Pilots will immediately notice better resolution in both air-to-air and ground-mapping use, but the main impact will evolve from future upgrades into the next ! century.
The APG-65 has reached the end of its life cycle. It became operational in 1981, and after five generations of software upgrades its hardware is fully exploited. The APG-73 adds new processors that are many times more powerful while retaining the traveling wave tube transmitter and antenna of the APG-65. And for growth beyond the year 2000, the APG-73 has provisions to replace the transmitter and antenna with a solid-state active array antenna.
Hughes Radar Systems and the Navy are testing the APG-73 on an F/A-l 8C at the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, Calif. The radar first flew on Apr. 15, 1 992, and more than 96 flights have been made with all components "performing as expected," a Navy official said. Another F/A-l 8C will join the program shortly, and the development tests are scheduled to end in July. Technical evaluation tests were originally set for July through September, but may be delayed slightly by other development activities. The first operational evaluation runs from October through next January.
There will be a second "Navy-only" operational evaluation starting in January, 1995. The Navy will approve the radar for full-rate production if this second opeval is successful.
The first delivery is scheduled earlier, in mid-1994 on a Marine Corps F/A1 8D, tentatively to MC AS Beaufort, S. C. All subsequent F/A-l 8C/Ds and E/Fs will have the APG-73. The Navy has decided to retrofit the APG-73 back to Lot 12, which was first delivered in October, 1989.
Finland's air force will receive 64 F/A1 8C/Ds with the APG-73 starting in 1995, and the Swiss air force plans to buy 34 F/A-l 8C/Ds for 1996 delivery. There are currently no plans to put the APG-73 on other aircraft, a Hughes official said.
There could be 1,200-1,500 APG-73s built if the Navy's plans for F/A-l 8E/Fs and new and retrofitted F/A-l 8C/Ds, as well as foreign orders, come through.
APG-73 work started with a $ 179.2million full-scale development contract from McDonnell Douglas Aerospace in June, 1990. A $ 197.7-million contract was awarded in June, 1991, for productionimplementation and the 15 Fiscal 1992 production radars. The contract for Fiscal 1993 production is now being negotiated. The unit fly-away cost for the APG-73 is "slightly more" than that of the APG-65 for the same quantity, Hughes and Navy officials said.
Hughes considers the APG-73 to be a three-phase program. The first phase is the basic radar that is under contract. Besides better resolution, the radar has new navigation ground map and
electroniccountercountermeasures (ECCM) modes, and modes from the Hughes APG-70 radar on the McDonnell Douglas F-l 5E strike fighter for better performance. The weight is within a few pounds of the APG-65.
The second phase, not yet funded, would give real-time all-weather reconnaissance to F/A-l 8s by improving the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mapping resolution and connecting the imagery to the advanced tactical air reconnaissance system (ATARS) recorder and data link. It would be the first software upgrade of the new APG-73 hardware. The Navy plans to start funding Phase 2 in Fiscal 1994.
With the high-resolution SAR linked to ATARS, the F/A-l 8 would have the reconnaissance capabilities of the APD-10 SAR pod formerly carried by Marine Corps RF-4s. The APD-10 is considered to be no longer maintainable, and the Marines want to replace it with the APG73 Phase 2. The Navy also is interested in high-resolution and very high-resolution SAR. The APG-73 could borrow
WKÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMÊÊamSÊÊmmœmmï . -some of these techniques from the Hughes advanced synthetic aperture radar system (ASARS) used on the Lockheed SR-71 and TR-1 spy airplanes.
Besides the software upgrades, APG73 Phase 2 SAR improvements would come from a compact inertial reference system located in the space made available by a smaller power supply. Airframe flexing hurts the SAR accuracy of the APG-73 Phase 1 and APG-65 because these models use the aircraft's midfuselage-mounted inertial system.
THE PHASE 2 RADAR-MOUNTED "motion sensor subsystem" would eliminate these flex errors. The unit could use fiberoptic gyroscopes, and would have higher update rates and finer acceleration and angular resolution better suited to SAR needs. Phase 2 also would add very high resolution SAR bombing modes from the APG-70.
The third phase would be the fitting of the active array antenna. This would give more transmitter power and a more agile electronically scanned beam. The current development contract requires that the APG-73 receiver have provisions for an active antenna, such as adequate pro-
cessing capability, internal wiring and external RF connections.
The APG-73 contract calls for only 60% of the hardware capacity to be used by the initial software, so that the remaining 40% of speed and memory is available for future growth. Specific improvements of the APG-73 over the APG65 include:
■ Faster analog-to-digital converters in the radar receiver. The 1 1-bit A/D converter in the air-to-air mode now runs at 5 MHz., compared with 1.3 MHz. in the APG-65. This gives a corresponding improvement in range resolution, to ideally a 100-ft. range cell, making it easier to count enemy aircraft in tight formation. The more precise absolute range gives more accurate weapon targeting calculations.
The 6-bit A/D converter in the air-toground mode is now running at 58 MHz., compared with 8 MHz. in the APG-65. This improves radar mapping resolution, making it easier to attack
ground targets. The APG-73 A/D converters use an improved version of the APG-65's silicon bipolar transistor technology.
■ A faster signal processor with 60 million complex operations per second (MCOPS) throughput, up from 7.14 MCOPS. The speed gives better Doppler resolution as it allows higher-order fast Fourier transforms to be used broadly, rather than selectively as on the APG-65. The higher Doppler resolution can better separate closely spaced aircraft and improves ECCM performance.
Sixty MCOPS allows for software growth, and another 20 MCOPS can be added later in an empty card slot. The new processor software is more maintainable as it is programmed in the Air Force's Jovial higher-order language. A waiver was obtained from using the Defense Dept.-mandated Ada language because Ada compilers were not mature when development started in early 1989, and to reuse Jovial software in Hughes' APG-70 and APG-71 processors, according to Jack O. Pearson, Hughes F/A-18 program manager.
■ A faster data processor with two million instructions per second speed. This improves the ability to track multiple targets and gives better ECCM. The processor has Mil-Std-1 750A architecture.
The data and signal processors now reside in one box instead of two for more reliable and shorter interconnections that make synchronization easier. Modules are connected by a printed wiring board backplane instead of wire-wrapped connectors for simpler production.
■ More memory. The signal processor has one megaword bulk memory and the data processor has two megawords firm memory. The extra memory mainly provides for growth in areas such as improved air-to-air velocity and range resolution, and improved SAR resolution.
■ Broader receiver bandwidth. This allows the APG-73 to operate with Marine Corps targeting beacons currently used with the Grumman A-6 attack aircraft that are beyond the frequency range of the APG-65. The broader bandwidth also helps the radar tune away from enemy countermeasures.
■ Binary pulse compression. The APG73 has greater pulse compression than the APG-65, leading to higher air-to-air range resolution, and for some air-toground modes, more power on the target due to a longer pulse length.
■ A range presum filter for better lookdown performance against clutter.
■ A smaller, more efficient low-voltage
power supply using solid-state instead of relay switching, and thin magnetic devices. Efficiency has increased to 85% from 72% because of a higher switching frequency and better heat-sinking of the magnetics. ■
 
Very funny ;)

Grown men come to me with tears in their eyes and say “Sir, I have never seen a notch so big and impressive since I flew the F-14!!!!”

Seriously however, I believe the APG-66 is 55 knots, so I would expect it to be around a similar value. I thumbed through the document and searched for different words but could not find anything.
 
AN/APG-63 is 45 knots, given lack of any other value I would use this as its an earlier Hughes product.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8401.png
    IMG_8401.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 21
  • IMG_8402.png
    IMG_8402.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 20
  • IMG_8403.png
    IMG_8403.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 20
AN/APG-63 is 45 knots, given lack of any other value I would use this as its an earlier Hughes product.
On a 80s F-15(perhaps a 90s aswell?), The rejection is ±48 knots on the lowest setting, on FS(frame store) 0,1,2,3. With GMTI with 0, 1, 2 FS makes it 65 kts. And GTMI 3 is on 88 kts.

Apg66 is 55kts

I'd assume the 65 is similar to the 63
 
Unless i missed relevant figures here or elsewhere, are there any reliable figures as to APG-65s range vs various types of airborne targets? The only relatively solid info i saw is the well known graph comparing the APG-66, APG-65 and APG-63 that gives roughly 45 nm versus a medium target (would that be 5 sqm?) 1993713582_APG-63Range.thumb.png.ce69a51a9d3e62b3284664875af6c60f.png
 
Well, the graph i posted says "medium target", and i think, but i might be wrong, it's from a different document and not related to the APG-66 trials?
Medium can mean anything. Medium for example on sparrow documentation on seeker ranges is 2m². Soviet it is 3m².

The chart you posted comes from the apg63 psp case study. There's another 1974 chart that gives ~65NM for a t33 target in downlook. In 1979(or 78?), the amplifiers of the apg63 got changer from parametric ones to FET amps and increased HPRF RWS range by about 20%. 65x1.2=78. Literally the figure given on the Case Study chart which came after that amplifier upgrade.
Below are RCS figures of T33 at 8.8 GHz in vertical polarization.
2025-04-11.png 2025-04-11 (2).png 2025-04-11 (1).png
In a different approach using Apg 66 data you have the info I put earlier

And both don't seem to imply something like 5m² but something lower and a quite similar value.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the T-33 RCS, i found widely different figures, from the 2 sqm figure you mention above, to as much as 6 sqm or even 9 sqm frontal (the 6 sqm figure is quoted on this forum too).

Looking at this post here, it appears the graph above showing the APG-63/65/66 ranges most closely aligns with the range quoted for APG-66 against a T-38?

Also i found somewhere a file of estimated APG-65/73 ranges made by someone, hope i can find it again.
PS: found it, how accurate it is?
 
Looking at this post here, it appears the graph above showing the APG-63/65/66 ranges most closely aligns with the range quoted for APG-66 against a T-38?
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/apg-66-declassified.1819/post-15446
It does, lookdown is the MPRF mode(what we are interested) and uplook is just the LPRF(pulse). https://images.app.goo.gl/u8KP1eiUrAjXQJoU8

PS: found it, how accurate it is?
I don't think it is bc if truly believe it then the APG63 would've had that same range. But the value they now use is 87 NM for a 5.5m^2 target. Much longer ranged than the one they "calculated". T-33 RCS value is just too big.
Regarding the T-33 RCS, i found widely different figures, from the 2 sqm figure you mention above, to as much as 6 sqm or even 9 sqm frontal (the 6 sqm figure is quoted on this forum too).
I rather stay with something tangible I can base of like the charts I posted plus couple others rather than just posts in places.
 
So what kind of figures of APG-65 do you think are reasonable? Based on that graph it seems that rounded up the APG-65 has a range 160% greater than APG-66. That seems to resolve to about 64 nm range vs F-4/MiG-23, about 78nm (predicted) vs MiG-25 and 120 nm (predicted) vs a Tu-95. Is that relatively close or i'm way off (too high/ optimistic)?
 
So what kind of figures of APG-65 do you think are reasonable? Based on that graph it seems that rounded up the APG-65 has a range 160% greater than APG-66. That seems to resolve to about 64 nm range vs F-4/MiG-23, about 78nm (predicted) vs MiG-25 and 120 nm (predicted) vs a Tu-95. Is that relatively close or i'm way off (too high/ optimistic)?
The ones from the chart you posted, though highly optimistic like directlyhead on, slow closure rate, small search zone etc. If you'r math is good then it should be that. Though, the apg65 is limited to 99N.M in RWS due to the FMR.
 
Last edited:
Well my math shucks, i just increased the APG-66 ranges by 160%. The figures i came to look too optimistic to me honestly (especially the Tu-95 figure, though it's contraprops must have given it a huge RCS) so i may have missed an important criteria. When looking at russian radars it seems that roughly speaking the range against a bomber is around 50% more than vs a fighter. In that case the APG-65 range vs a bomber would resolve to under 100nm.

Also, that 6 sqm figure for T-33 must have come from somewhere, since it is quoted on this forum related to APG-63? Perhaps compared to the pretty small and presumably clean head-on T-38, it's overall shape especially those tip tanks could have given the T-33 that 6 sqm RCS? Or maybe it had reflectors on that particular test?
 
Well my math shucks, i just increased the APG-66 ranges by 160%. The figures i came to look too optimistic to me honestly (especially the Tu-95 figure, though it's contraprops must have given it a huge RCS) so i may have missed an important criteria.
Well. 100% from the apg66. Not 160%.
60NM to f4
71NM to mig25
120nm to tu95
Bomber RCS figure vary alot
The ones from the chart you posted, though highly optimistic like directlyhead on, slow closure rate, small search zone etc. If you'r math is good then it should be that. Though, the apg65 is limited to 99N.M in RWS due to the FMR.

When looking at russian radars it seems that roughly speaking the range against a bomber is around 50% more than vs a fighter. In that case the APG-65 range vs a bomber would resolve to under 100nm.
Soviets generally used 19 or 20 m² for the RCS figure of bombers if you looked at the manuals, ex mig 29 avionics manual and mig 25 manual. It's 1.75x-1.78x the range of a 3m² fighter.
Also, that 6 sqm figure for T-33 must have come from somewhere, since it is quoted on this forum related to APG-63? Perhaps compared to the pretty small and presumably clean head-on T-38, it's overall shape especially those tip tanks could have given the T-33 that 6 sqm RCS? Or maybe it had reflectors on that particular test
In the charts I put above, the t33 is with wing tanks and no reflectors.
 
Well. 100% from the apg66. Not 160%.
60NM to f4
71NM to mig25
120nm to tu95
Bomber RCS figure vary alot



Soviets generally used 19 or 20 m² for the RCS figure of bombers if you looked at the manuals, ex mig 29 avionics manual and mig 25 manual. It's 1.75x-1.78x the range of a 3m² fighter.

In the charts I put above, the t33 is with wing tanks and no reflectors.
Like i said my math is terrible unfortunately, i just put those figures through an online calculator, but somehow your figures for F-4 and MiG-25 are lower than what i got, yet for Tu-95 are equal. What did i missed?
 
Like i said my math is terrible unfortunately, i just put those figures through an online calculator, but somehow your figures for F-4 and MiG-25 are lower than what i got, yet for Tu-95 are equal. What did i missed?
If ranges for the APG-65 are 2x of the Apg66 you just multiply by 2
 
If ranges for the APG-65 are 2x of the Apg66 you just multiply by 2
Well the graph seems to show that the APG-65 has a 66% greater detection range than the APG-66, and i actually rounded down that to 60% just to be on the safe side imo, and i arrived at the figures i quoted of 64, 78 and 120nm respectively.

But especially the latter figure seems incredulous to me, this thing has more range than Zaslon?! (however that 180-200 km figure was against a Tu-16 target, while the Tu-95 is literally a flying barn as far as RCS is concerned, i've read estimates of 100 sqm, so there is that)

So probably the lower limit of 99nm or say 100nm for RWS as you quoted earlier is more realistic?
 
Well the graph seems to show that the APG-65 has a 66% greater detection range than the APG-66, and i actually rounded down that to 60% just to be on the safe side imo, and i arrived at the figures i quoted of 64, 78 and 120nm respectively.

But especially the latter figure seems incredulous to me, this thing has more range than Zaslon?! (however that 180-200 km figure was against a Tu-16 target, while the Tu-95 is literally a flying barn as far as RCS is concerned, i've read estimates of 100 sqm, so there is that)

So probably the lower limit of 99nm or say 100nm for RWS as you quoted earlier is more realistic?
I compared MPRF(not LPRF) of the APG-66 to the HPRF of the APG-65. MPRF of the APG65 is lower ranged than its HPRF mode. I didn't use LPRF because doppler modes would be better either way.

Zaslon is quoted as 200km for a 19m^2 target, so 65N.M for a 2m^2 target. Longer ranged than the APG-65.
Screenshot_20240817-133345_Chrome.jpg

That is just a ranging limit. If by any chance it could detect it at that range(120km) it would not appear in the scope bc the radar wont range that far even though the SNR is enough. If the pilot switched to VS then it would see the bomber at 120NM but just the doppler return, and even longer range as the Pd increases as it just need's to detect the target in 1 PRF out 2 compared to 3 out of 3 in RWS.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom