I would be very surprised if the MAWs was also AESA.
The jammers of the Eurofighter essentially seems to be pods fitted to the wingtips rather than conformal antennas.
The MAWS of Eurofighter are more conformal to the airframe which has the benefit of reducing cross section and drag at the expense of fitting more advanced or more powerful technologies.
The MAWS electronics are moved somewhere else on the EF, not right next to like in the jammers
trying to stir up some BS I see.
I think you completely flew past his point.
He says that in the early 2000’s an IR MAW was considered for the EFT but rejected because the EFT did not have enough computing power, from this source :
Which, considering other planes such as the M2K had it 10 years prior, is… interesting
Knowing his track record. He’d try to use that source to remove the radar MAWS from the EFT. Hes been trying to use obscure sources like that to nerf anything and everything British. Hes trying to nerf the CR2 for example
I think you should stop putting that much brainpower in thinking about him. You clearly have a toxic relationship here. You are at least as much guilty of twisting his word as you claim he is of doing that to EFT reports. He clearly wishes to nerf the EFT, but « trying to remove the radar MAW » is stupid
Can you please point to me on the typhoon where the Infra Red Sensors are for the MAWS thank you
(the wing root MAWS on the typhoon literally have warning stickers on them to say they transmit radiation)
edit - typo and photo added
I tried making a suggestion for this but it got denied,im not sure if im doing it wrong or if im missing something
They’re not saying the Typhoon uses IR, but that there’s an issue with IR MAWS that the Eurofighter had faced and thus decided not to use
Its unlikely the MAWS could provide the full 360° coverage or the multiple simultaneous target handleing capability it provides without it being an ESA, particularly since there arent any obvious moving components. As ppl have stated, the tech was clearly there already, seeing as they had ESA jammers, its not exactly a leap to assume the MAWS were also ESA’s.
That being said, there is no definitive proof for or against the MAWS antennas being ESA’s or not.
An interesting thing I did read up on (to try to stear this back on topic) is that the Praetorian EVo is looking into incorporating both IIR and radar MAWS simulataneously for the Eurofighter P4E. Any idea if the Rafale F5’s MAWS are heading in a similar direction?
As far as i understand, there will be no change at all to the MAWS.
Thata unfortunate.
There were actually plans to move to IIR and away from radar MAWs according to Eurofighter consortium
Full coverage is based on number of antennas, wouldn’t really have anything to do with whether or not it is ESA.
There are 3 antennas, each would need to cover a minimum of 60 deg in azimuth, likely more to remove the risk of missing a missile at the extremities of each search angle, which would be pretty hard to do without an ESA, seeing as they don’t appear to have any moving components. Each antenna would also need to be able to track multiple targets accurately enough to provide TTI for potential incoming missiles. I could be wrong but I find it somewhat dubious that all that’s being done with a regular non-ESA radar, particularly since, once again, ESA antennas were already being used for the jammers.
In the end, theres no definitive proof for either sides, with arguments for both camps, but I’m not exactly sure why you guys care SO much about what exact kind of antenna is used on the EFT, particularly since your original point was that the EFT’s makers did not have the tech to miniaturize ESA’s in the first place, which has already been proven wrong.
I’ll also add that there is a really nasty habit of misrepresenting sources in this threads community for some reason, both to the detriment of competitor aircrafts, and the benefit of your own, which seriously puts into question your credibility/integrity at this point in my eyes.
That doesn’t say the radar MAWS is going away, it could mean a passive MAWS would be added in addition to the radar one.
Consider me corrected on that front.
TTI seems to be provided by the Harrier GR.7’s MAWS as well no? What is the coverage of Harrier GR.7’s MAWS?
I didn’t dispute the jammers being AESA, only that I wanted some sources for it. Didn’t find it dubious as the jammer pods were quite large and on the wingtips as opposed to conformal antennas which are harder to do. The MAWS on the EFT are conformal and that is harder to achieve for AESA antennas and that is what I had disputed.
Oooo using the LWR mounts for a hybrid LWR/PMAW is a interesting idea.
I think its more speaking of removing the current LWR and replacing them with IR MAWS sensors tbh.
Your point before it was mentioned the jammers were definitely ESA’s was that no other aircrafts had ESA’s at the time, much less miniaturized ESA’s.
You then asked for a source on the claim for the jammers, and changed your tune on the jammers, but remain convinced the MAWS arent ESA’s due to size constraints, which you could’ve checked isnt an issue, seeing as the wing root (where the MAWS are located) are of similar thickness as the wingtip pods.
This is also just ignoring the fact that the size of the wingtip pods clearly isn’t dictated by the antenna size, but by the boxy ESM computer components, which in the pic of the MAWS components, can clearly be seen not to be directly attached to the MAWS antennas, instead seemingly using wired connections.
Idk anything about the Harrier’s MAWS system barring that its an older PD MAWS system, so I can’t comment on it.
I should note it was said specifically AESA. PESA had already been on the Mig-31 and Rafale in the 90’s for example, so saying ESA wouldn’t have been right. I don’t even know if Rafale had PESA jammers or not at the time as well, just knew it was not AESA. Just to make a distinction since you had been stating ESA and not AESA which is important to clarify.
Asking for a source on the claim of the jammers doesn’t necessarily mean I cast doubt on the jammers FYI. Anyone asking for a source on a claim doesn’t mean they’re on a particular side. I was already vocal about my doubts of AESA maws.
I’ll have to look more into this.
