I see a lot of talk about scan speed for the captor-M coming to the game, but what im more worried about is the volumetric scan rate.
The J-10A’s radar for example has a good scan speed, but the scan volume is a little lacking (40x10 or 80x5) for my liking. Id hope the EFT’s CAPTOR-M is more along the lines of the volumetric scan rate of the Su-34’s N001 (60x10°, there also a 60x20°, and 30x20°).
Im worried the EFT’s TWS might be fast but still not scan all that much, making it a pain to use in sim.
Well, it goes 1 / 2 / 4 / 6 / 8 bar, not sure how limited it is in TWS modes though.
There is huge issue with WT scans where you cant select bars and width in RWS.
Big thing about captor is priority track, which will simply miss in WT 100%.
It can track up 6 targets with higher refresh rate by always jumping to their elevation when antenna is on their azimuth. It can jump outside of scan area vertically too.
This pretty much allows you to designate 6 targets you want to keep updated and scan different area vertically / use wider scan with less bars, yet still get updates even though the targets are not in bar coverage.
Yeah i do know the bar numbers, but the actual bar width and height for each, as well as which is used for TWS (some could be used for ground modes or plain search modes only for example) still eludes me, and thats kind of the important part…
The N001V004 for examlle uses a 4 bar at 2.5° height scan for its 60x10° TWS mode, making each bar 2.5° in height, which is pretty small, but it scans FAST across said bars, so it being multiple thin bars isnt an issue as all.
The N009 in the Su-27 on the other hand is 50x10° TWS scan divided across 4 2.5° bars, which is a good volume, but the scan speed is glacial, making the radar a nightmare to use, since at the speed it scans, its volumetric scan rate is horrid.
This is further aggravated by the issue some have pointed out about repeating bars when a scan cycle is over.
Yeah thatd require a very high radar gimbal speed, the scan rate should therefore be very high (hopefully gaijin gets that right), which leaves the scan volume as the second and key part of the volumetric scan rate.
My hope (at a bare minimum). Fox Hunter like scan rate but with at least the 11° vertical scan region of the Blue Vixen (though being a heavily upgraded Blue Vixen, I dont think a small increase from 11° would be entirely unreasonable to hope for)
I will just use the HMD to quickly get the lock, launch and then unlock again. I am pretty sure a lot of people do it the same way. And at longer ranges, it really doesnt matter than much either
Well, the azimuth scan width is tricky there…
You can make your own in real typhoon by just choosing angle on line and then it limits the scan.
It also changes bars based on range if you dont have any nominated targets.
The lower the range, the more bars you get on full azimuth.
I dont really understand it fully as ive never seen anything like this.
Its hella automated where it does tons of stuff for you. It can also keep volume exactly right to cover all tracks and scan is centered around their middle.
If its lock range stays the same, does it actually matter? And can you use pirate UI to IFF? Because if we could iff with it in sims, it could be used for jumping someone quite well.
I doubt IFF, but should slave the TGP and if they ever fix the render distances, the zoom + quality on it should be enough for decent range VIDs without IFF.
But you can also just swap a radar lock over to IRST.
So you could TWS IFF someone and then either lock them and swap the lock to IRST or just manually lock the target with IRST.
In either case, would enable you to track the target and set up an intercept. With no radar scans at all to tip of the target until the AMRAAM is fired, its going to make it far harder for them to pre-react to the threat, by closing the distance before firing they’ll have a matter of seconds to react that is unlikely enough time to do anything about it.
if nothing else, you dont have to deal with fumbling between radar and IRST in a fight.
But yeah, heavily at the mercy of how its modeled in terms of range
@Flame2512 Convergent-Divergent nozzle of EFT is not optimized for supercruise. You brought this up previously. I’d hazard a guess the RM12 and M88-3 are better optimized nozzles for dry-supersonic conditions.
Additionally, this source indirectly confirms what we already knew - the ASRAAM had neutral or negative stability and doesn’t need to maintain significantly high AoA compared to other more stable designs when launched at low airspeeds. Source
This improves tip-off error as stated… more on that here; source
Doubtful, considering the Harrier doesn’t have an afterburner. It looks like it’s writing about either a prototype and/or a consideration paper for a TVC equipped Eurofighter.
