But that plan does not automatically mean that MK1s upgraded capabilities follow the MK2s way
‘inferior’ by standards made up.
no documentation, official or otherwise, states that the FOR was reduced to ± 90 degrees. yet here we are in this spiral of an argument across threads.
1 Like
So, you are saying that Germany must be substantially stronger than Britain and Italy because Germany must be OP?
So Germany can get PIRATE, MK1 and brimstones because of test aircraft but Britain cant get MK2 because test aircraft?
No, it’s likely that Mk1 will always be a little weaker in terms of EW but that won’t matter because if the AREXIS
Yeah that was the point im making before. I dont think Germany chose MK1 due to timelines but because they already planned with AREXIS and generally dedicated EFT EKs in mind
If the 07 has it mounted, why not? All would be happy to get something planned ahead of current service models.
Maybe, I still think AREXIS was a reaction to the Mk1 rather than the plan for the get go.
Because it’s a massive buff. Given that it has been tested by Britain and Italy too, it would come to all 3 at the same time as part of the P4E upgrade
IPA 07 is a jointly owned eurofighter by everyone in the Eurofighter consortium
Its a specifically German test aircraft. Its operating from Manching, Germany. German personnel. German markings and colors.
9 Likes
It’s not specifically owned by Germany. It’s owned by NETMA who test and procure for all nations within the eurofighter consortium for there needs and wants. It’s just happened to be the aircraft that was supplied by the consortium was one from the luftwaffe. It’s a test and development aircraft for everyone within the consortium. Hence why British and Italian pilots also test with it.
1 Like
Mk.1 isn’t inferior per se tho. It’s just mire focused on conventional radar operations like instead of EW. Mk.2 is a radar made for EW, and will likely sacrifice some normal capabilities for it (otherwise I don’t see the point in using combined GaAs and GaN, I doubt their trying to he cheap)
Less cheap, more fast. MK1 is less capable overall and thus was ready a few years sooner. Germany was eager to get the ball rolling on P4E asap
Yeah, because we decided to forgo EW capabilities. It’ll be worse in that regard sure, but better in others. Not one of them is worse than the other objectivly, it depends on what you want more. So calling one inferior is just wrong
Care to go into details? Just saying “Mk.1 = bad, Mk.2 = better” doesn’t really argue in your favor…
1 Like
Never said MK1 was bad. But it is a less capable overall radar as it lacks the ability to do A2A/A2G at the same time as EW.
1 Like
So? The Mk.2 is less capable when doing stuff like (I)SAR and other standard radar stuff. So no, the Mk.1 isn’t overall less capable, it just doesn’t try to do everything at the same time, missing out on some capabilites. The Mk.2 is a “jack of all trades but master of none”, while the Mk.1 tries to do one thing really good.
Cause of this: AFAIK the Mk.2 split its transceiver count between GaN and GaAs modules. GaN used for high power radar applications, GaAs for signal quality dependent EW. The Mk.1 has only GaN transceivers. In consequence the Mk.2 has less GaN transceivers which limits its capabilites when used as standard radar (not bad in any way, but worse than the Mk.1) but is able to do EW stuff with higher signal qualities, even though with less power. GaN has up to ten times the power of GaAs and a better Signal-to-noise ratio.
The Mk.1 will be able to do EW stuff too after the next stage of its developement as it’s mostly (not completly) a question of software. Maybe not reaching the signal quality of GaAs modules (except they compensated the worse linearity of GaN with an accoring circuit design, which is very possible) but with much more output power.
Calling both these radars Mk.1 and Mk.2 is really unfitting and misleading after all. They’re variants of the base Mk.0 radar at best, while the Mk.1 is closer to the Mk.0 and the Mk.2 to the ES-05 Raven.
They should have called them something like CAPTOR-H (Hensoldt) and CAPTOR-L (Leonardo) instead of Mk.1 and Mk.2 in my opinion.
4 Likes
That is not true and it comes around so much i think people are trying to spread misinformation.
Like where did that notion even come from?
Interview with Monica Perez Technical Director of Indra, main partner with Hensoldt on the Mk1 says:
So no it doesn’t need to stop doing A2G or A2A in order to perform EW functions.
3 Likes