This is due to the fact AESA is just modelled as a faster scanning mechanical with more overall scanzone. Normally AESA radar split the different modules of the radar to keep tracking a designated target while continuing to scan, in game this is not modelled so when the radar change elevation you lose previously detected/tracked targets.
AAnd all PESA or AESA radar will suffer this problem until gaijin properly models AESA.
yeah i was about to say, is it only me or is it rafale that cannot keep the tws lock
Yes… foxhunter M-scan radar on tornado is faster.
9 Likes
Well that “aesa” is worse in scan rate than MECHANICAL dish.
Any feature of AESA is missing… Constant track of multiple targets? No cant do. Quick updates? No cant do. Quick refrest rate, should be extremely quick, NO CANT DO.
9 Likes
All PESA and AESA radars are modelled like sh*t, its a game issue, not minor nation issue.
2 Likes
Locked targets are not visible in HMD either…
1 Like
but this goes in both ways, angle scan losses of ESA arrays also arent modelled.
±70° for an ESA array is ludicrous, even ±60° is already at the border of whats usable, giving a mere 35 - 40% of the ESAs power output. And thats in one dimension only
I know… but what about, you know, sounds crazy… Make scan so fast that it can actually keep the track. Its slower now than M-scan on tornado. Which is insane.
But of course, russia cen get its pesa fast scan without issue, god forbid france getting something nice for once?
You get nice platform, well, let us cripple its sensors and let us give you almost half the weapons of other nations.
5 Likes
So it hasn’t change since the dev server, i had the same trouble with the mig15
My memory may be failing me, and I’m far too tired to recall the physics behind it, but have we not seen several advancements in phased array set ups to improve the scan width? Both in the technology itself, and the installation methods.
I am mostly asleep though, had a tonne of caffeine and that tends to knock me out.
the study which I’m relying on is from 2019, stating an practical limit of ±60° due to the underlying physics
On the use of AESA (Active ElectronicallyScanned Array) Radar and IRST (InfraRed Search&Track) System to Detect and Track Low Observable Threats
Sadly I dont have a link right now
I recall reading something on helping to improve the scan width, but I don’t have it to hand. I’ll see if I can find anything I read on it when I’m not on the verge of collapse. If I remember.
It’s not ±70° though it’s ±35°
5 Likes
Glad someone caught that.
I’m talking about the total FoV, not the area scanned at a time
Did someone bug report the hilariously bad radar yet?
Yes, someone did it after less than a hour
I see, hopefully they change it
Right now it’s like 1970s early pulse-doppler in terms of track lol
2 Likes
This is ±70°, in both elevation and azimuth
2 Likes
So wait, if I understood correct, Rafale has :
- Less missiles than Mirage 2K5F
- Excuse of an AESA radar (worse than SU-34’s PESA)
- Worse flight model than Eurofighter
What’s the point ?
1 Like