Talk:AN/AWG-9

Military history: Aviation / Technology / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

What about dates?

There isn't a single date in this article to let the reader know when this all happened. It makes one mention of "after a decade", but no clue as to whether this would make it now the 60's or 70's or what. One could look through the pages on the fighters mentioned, and extrapolate, but it would be better if the article just gave landmark dates for the project directly. AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam historiography.

The claim that an all missile fighter was unviable seems a bit dubious given that the USN performed better in terms of air to air engagements without a cannon than the USAF did with, not to mention that the teen series of aircraft that came after the Vietnam war have scored almost all their kills with missiles. I think the focus of the section regarding the viability of gun-less fighter should be shifted to the viability of a high performance and maneuverable fighter as opposed to one that was a good cannon platform.

TWS mode

The F-14 almost certainly did not have the first airborne track while scan function on its radar, the Izumrud radar used on the Mig-17 and Mig-19 is the first TWS radar that I can think of, that one used a seperate antenna to track a single target while searching with the primary antenna.

What's the source on the F-14 being the first to have an airborne TWS? Mameyn (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the range?

Whats de range of the radar? 2806:10BE:4:319F:1413:7032:A5FC:BEDB (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in describing the AWG-9 as an analogue computer

The difference between the AWG-9 and older radars such as the ones used in the F-4 Phantom is that the AWG-9 utilizes an Intel 8080 microprocessor - otherwise Track While Scan would be impossible. But there are other modes on this radar. So could someone explain why the AWG-9 is listed in this article at an analogue radar? I agree that the APG-71 was more advanced, had additional modes and was a networked radar (Super Tomcats could share data with each other so their crews saw the same picture). But the F-14 was ground-breaking in part because it introduced a digital computer to the art of detecting, tracking and destroying an enemy aircraft or cruise missile. Early prototypes were intended for use on the A-11 interceptor and the F-111B, neither of entered production (Grumman produced the F-111B only for trials, after which it was abandoned). Can we rewrite that section? I invite input.Raryel (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]