Yeah, that is not what i was trying to say.I should’ve worded that differently.
That is what i was going for.
So, theoretically it is a possibility, albeit a weird one.
There are many factors at play, especially if you look at the used frequency. Higher frequency means better antenna gain but reduced range depending on the weather. For example most radars work in the X-Band with 8-12 GHz and are able to generate signals not only in a narrow frequency band but also in a wide one which also means different behavior and gains. Different antennas have different gains at different frequencies and so on… And don’t even start with polarization.
So you could also build a radar which works in the K-Band (like the new AN/APG-83 SABR in the >20 GHz spectrum) and would have smaller (but more) T/R units with higher gain but reduced range in certain atmospheric conditions.
Read man, its just a few posts above, stop spreading misinformation.
It can do EW while scanning, what do you think “modes of operation combined with electronic attack” means?
As if that wasnt already the case?
Mk 1 has a multichannel wideband antenna that fully uses GaN trms
EW is for step 1 which replaces the whole dish and doesn’t even state that it can do the EW while scanning
In a nutshell, there are to many unknown or rather classified factors at play to make conclusions or even assumptions.
Most are just physics. What’s calssified is how these physical limitations are worked around in each radar (circuitry design, antennas used, usage of the spectrum and signal design, software, etc.).
So yes, very many unknown but also not useful to have ingame at this point as the “simulation” is really superficial.
Where was it ever stated that the dish is gonna be replaced?
AFAIK it is inherently possible for every AESA to do EW and radar together because of the ability to form multiple beams with different properties, otherwise AESAs couldn’t do A2A, A2G, etc. at the same time too as these modes also require different beam properties (and frequencies) like EW does. It’s mostly a question of software how each T/R unit are addressed in the Array.
I could only imagine that they replace the dish or T/R units with newer ones having a new circuit design to enhance the signal quality of the modules as GaN has worse linearity. But that’s the only thing I can think of which would justify a dish replacement.
I have a feeling adapted means scan while jam, but if thats not enough look no further that the other partner on the Mk1 to provide info, Indra.
Step 1 is already done, the 2027 date was for integration on the Quadriga aircraft that need to be delivered, since mass production was already started this summer retrofitting aircraft might have already started.
Also you got it wrong, the whole dish (antenna) was replaced with step 0, EW is step 2 and is cocnsidered a software update.
Step 1 was replacing various subsystems in the backend like Power supply.
Seems it can now but not as good as the mk2 which is just better at EW with it having more modules and a completely different backend
Based on what information exactly?
Are we really coping that the mk1 is better or equal to the mk2 when the mk1 still uses the CAPTOR-M back in end with less modules and power we are entering some other levels of cope
Mk2 is better because it is much newer devolpment with newer back end
There is a reason the mk1 needed upgrades to get near the mk 2
In terms of EW jamming the mk2 is much better then mk1 for the job considering it didn’t even have this capability added onto it from an upgrade
Mk0 and mk1 are devolpments of CAESAR while mk2 is a development of mk0 with the additional tech learned from Bright adder
the only coping one is still you.
the others add source to their claims, but you didnt it once.
I think you misunderstand that the Mk.1 and Mk.2 aren’t incremental development steps. They’re effectively unrelated developments and not “one version is newer than the other”.
Mk.1 is based on the Mk.0 (2014) which is based on the CAESAR (2005).
Mk.2 is based on “Bright Adder” (2010) and ARTS (2007) while being similar to the ES-05 (also from Leonardo).
In consequence, they’re completly different radars with similar surrounding hardware (gimbal, power, etc.).
I’m asking you for the reason of your assumptions and you only say something akin to “higher number = better”. There is no technical base for your assumption except for ambiguous marketing materials. If you don’t have anything, you just say “cope”. Is that really your strategy?
4 Likes
Mk2 is also based on mk0 so i don’t know why you left that out
Like the gimbal is only real thing that is in commom with most of these
More modules means better ability scan
More power and new back end allows for better range power and cooling
Like why does it need to spelled out that mk2 is better
Idk where you got the Idea from that the Mk.1 Backend is unchanged, but you’re wrong. Why do so many of you Brits have the need to talk about a radar you obviously know very little about?
Mk.1 and Mk.2 are sidegrades to one another. Mk.2 focusing on the more comples EW capabilities (which is why it takes longer) and Mk.1 focusing on conventional radar operations with EW being an afterthought
2 Likes
Mk0 and mk1 still use the CAPTOR-M but modfied and mk2 is completely new
Like why don’t you understand that more modules doesn’t mean better ability to scan? There’s so much more to that and not “more = better”. For example it can be like this:
More modules → less space → smaller antennas and less power while having less antenna gain → worse sensitivity.
Even worse if you split the T/R units between EW and standard radar operation as then you will have overall less T/R modules for both of these modes (half GaAs T/Rs and half GaN T/Rs).
The backend for the Mk.1 was upgraded too, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to have high resolution (I)SAR functionality for ground and NCTS in simultaneous A2A and A2G mode. Thinking it would use the unchanged CAPTOR-M backend is just plain naive. The GaN transceivers also have way more power than GaAs transceivers and are more sensitive too (better signal-to-noise-ratio).
And even though: As long as you can’t say how capable the CAPTOR-M backend was to begin with and how much it was modified afterwards makes your “argument” void.
3 Likes
I guess i don’t have to go further since you see one radar have an advantage over then other a side grade
no, he doesnt write that. he wrote two times, that are different developments with different advantages and disadvantages
you are just crying, because someone overwehlm you.
where are your sources btw?
Mk2 does EW better then mk1 yeah
What does the mk1 do better then if it is a side grade