Whatever makes you feel better Alvis…
1 Like
Dudes, don’t fight on something like that…
6 Likes
Thats why ended the discussion.
İ dont wanna fight on my Favourite French Jet thread.
1 Like
if anything, it’s still better to have a RBE2 PESA than a RDY. Basically more reliable and a much higher refresh rate (and maybe more scan angles too, but idk about that).
Range on that is a bit limited however, but that’s why RBE2 AESA (2013) exists
2 Likes
Responded in the wrong thread?
no i was avoiding off topic in the Gripen thread, since RBE2 is Rafale’s stuff
6 Likes
scan angles on all fixed phased arrays suck. You get maybe ±60°, but more likely is ±45° before transmission power, and thus range, drastically falls off (scan loss its called). Mechanical radars can somewhat easily get ±70°
1 Like
on the sides yes, but i was thinking of the vertical scan angles, i’d take ± 45° instead of a 5° slice any day of the week X)
PESA wouldnt have great advantages in that regard either. Yes they can change direction instantly, but dwell time puts a hard limit on how fast they can move while still detecting anything. The time to scan a given volume isnt really that much smaller than a MSA, though they could do fancier scan patterns.
Biggest advantage of a PESA will probably be track revisits during TWS.
1 Like
Guiding more than one SARH towards more than one separate target at a given time is one big advantage. Most Russian PESA equipped planes can do 2-4x SARH guidance at one particular moment. MiG-31 could do 4x R-33… MiG-29SMT should be able to do 2x R-27ER…
But they have phased array MSA…
This isn’t true for PESA currently modeled in-game is it? Pantsir scans the volume of air much quicker than anything else I’ve seen with its PESA radar.
Another interesting thing about the RBE2 PESA radar is its ability to lock onto 4 different targets in ACM modes. Would probably be something that PESAs in general would be able to do over the MSA ones.
so much faith in gaijin, I like how you fantasize. Most likely it will be mistreated, like the Mirage 2000D1, to date they don’t load stupid bombs above 250kg, in reality yes. It doesn’t even load the mediocre 400kg samp or 1000lbs unguided bomb. It translates that you don’t even throw down a base in RB, and would it be the top French attacker? The same logic will be the Rafale. If you are really interested in the French tech tree, start asking for adequate weapons layouts, not Rafales or other aircraft. There’s so much to do
2 Likes
Let’s discuss this on the Mirage 2000 thread
is a right thing, you know. Is also about Rafale
any source on that ?
dwell time is a constraint, but tbh i don’t see it longer than a few ms
could be wrong though
Its dependent on how fast and how many pulses you can integrate back. More N samples collected, the higher the probability to detect a target. Radars that advertise ‘stealth target detection’ slow down the beam scan rate to increase the time on target for the higher Pd. Higher/faster processing allows you to shorten the integration time after collecting N pulses and using them optimally.
A pulse going and coming will take 2ms for 300km. But a single pulse is not enough, you need quite alot of them for a good SNR and a sufficient amount of listening TIME for the doppler resolution(condition of FFT) and rate of it(FFT condition).
Mechanical antennas can move much faster but they don’t due to the stuff above. Same way can be said regarding electronic beam steering.
Look at the footage from the mig 31 shooting down a target over ukraine. https://youtu.be/ZxAGVMTtQb0?si=WJslrQqBzvG1RFN1 you can see the scanning rate on the ±45° VS screen. It’s not instantly scanning the the entire sky.
2 Likes
fair enough (i’d argue it’s a bit faster, but not by much). To be clear, i wouldn’t expect a PESA to be instentanious. Physics are ruthless, as always.
note : careful with the videos of this conflict, they don’t like it much here.
That may apply to PESA, but AESA can look at different areas simultaneously, so meh. Not to mention, while mechanical radar may indeed be able to move faster, they will lose in terms of service life.
I definitely thought a PESA would be a bit faster though. That makes the gap between PESA and AESA even larger it seems
It also applies to AESA aswell, though the scan methods are different(the famous rave light pattern thing). Some PESAs can look 2-4 targets at the same time aswell. The lobe/beam take an effect in both. Tx/Rx power.
The performance/capabilities gap between AESA/PESA is actually much much bigger than you think. Espcially western v eastern. If you think of it, NCTR is 40 year old tech done with 40 year old tech, and it was effective and reliable. Finding target signals that are sub-noise level has been done, ~ TWO decades ago. And much more.
4 Likes