Regardless of what you think of CAPTOR-M the British MOD saved Europe from a far greater crime. The Germans wanted to use the MSD2000 (a beefed up AN/APG-65) - or even just a regular AN/APG-65 - which would have been a far worse radar. The MOD had to put up a multi-year fight to get the Germans to finally back down from that.
It was a conscious decision to make a best in class mechanical scan radar, which could be upgraded to AESA at a later date. Even if it wasn’t though, there is not a hope in hell that the Germans would have accepted an AESA radar initially, so you can’t pin this one on the British.
It is a little sad how long it has taken the AESA upgrade to come to fruition, but that’s politics for you.
I also told you that the RCS requirement was to be <1m2 while carrying 6 missiles, and that testing indicated the requirement would be met.
6 Likes
EAP was being conceptualised in the 1980s - so presumably we can add ‘lacking TIME TRAVEL capabilities’ to his long list of ills with the Typhoon.
Because he responded to you in one of these threads and told you <1m^2. You have been being selective for a number of days, and no I do not believe in the gangups against you most of the time because as I have mentioned several times often you bring sources.
But you keep, being, selective in this thread, and others relating to this. Take yesterday in this thread, with Britecloud:
Literally the first result when you search ‘Britecloud Eurofighter’ is this, either you chose to find one of the only sources that doesn’t mention the Eurofighter despite it literally being invented by a Eurofighter partner to which you’re well aware, or you made a mistake… and then proceeded to use it in a way which evidently would have stirred up some sort of inflamation.
The second one:
You can only plead woeful ignorance so many times.
For the record, i’ve been quietly agreeing with several of your points, but you keep doing this strange thing where you then deliberately do something inflammatory to ruin it all.
10 Likes
already let him know about this, idk why u post again
You said:
Unless you were referring to the Typhoon indeed being mentioned 6 or 7 paragraphs down which I assumed you weren’t.
i was referring to typhoon, just guesstimated paragraph number, shouldve posted a screenshot though
That’s fair enough, it was primarily to illustrate a point to be honest. As I said, I do personally appreciate Mig’s insights positive or negative but only when they are constructive rather than very clearly designed to irritate people.
1 Like
when did they decide on radar?
1990’s. Actually more mid-80’s if you consider proposals on ACA for further derivatives of Foxhunter and BV.
I think it was 1980s to be honest. First flight was 1994 and they would’ve got the format nailed down some time before that.
I suspect they didn’t want a repeat of the old Cement Radar of the Tornado ADV…
2 Likes
britecloud also doesn’t need “integration” in a hardware or software sense…
not for eurofighter
not for F-18
not for F-35
hell, not even for C-130s
1 Like
It’s relatively plug and play isn’t it.
Does make me wonder if its a wide spectrum decoy or if it can narrow down its jamming frequency to further target incoming missiles.
then theres really no excuse for no AESA, take this 1994 document for example
on page 8, there is the prototype F-22 radar mounted on what appears to be the testbed boeing 757 they used for R&D
on the bottom of page 7 you can see a 1978 paper on PAVE PAWS phased array radar (AESA/PESA hybrid) cited
I am somewhat surprised they didn’t use CAESAR as an interim given they could literally just attach it to the CAPTOR-M mounting and it worked relatively flawlessly as far as prototypes go.
its made to be that way. theres the 55mm ones for eurofighter and tornado
and the 218 variant for 2" by 1" by 8" flare or chaff launchesr like those found on the gripen, f-16, f-18, f-15, basically any other western jet lol.
they’re entirely self contained. you just tell it to launch (like you would a flare) and it does its thing.
however you can choose to use a modified launcher to add a datalink to the aircraft’s ESM systems
2 Likes
To be fair - it was quite a while before they’d got a reliable AESA package for a fighter. The first actual operational jet with it would’ve been F-2 (early 2000s).
You either delay the (already delayed EFT) program or as @Flame2512 points out - you make probably one of the best non-AESA radars you can with the option to upgrade later on.
i think modern day ALE-47 launchers paired with AN/ALQ-250 EPAWSS (very new ECM suite) on strike eagle/EX should be able to interface with it no?
wdym “reliable”
one of the biggest advantages of AESA is increased reliabilty over M-scan, i believe they even say this in the document
a big issue, at least at first, was full scale production of T/R modules which is what the paper is about
You’re forgetting the F-22 programme was more than 3 times as expensive to develop compared to the Eurofighter programme. I think thats something often very overlooked, is that you are comparing the wrong aircraft.
For example a very good M-Scan could well have been a smoother experience and better starting point than a prototype AESA that could have been problematic for example J/APG-1 which is on a country with a budget closer to the UK’s was far from flawless upon service entry, and if you factored in CAESAR in ~2008 its not too far behind.
Though I of course accept that it was not in service and it is a very real detriment as many, including MIg, have pointed out very rightly, but that’s not from a lack of ability to produce AESA but a lack of funds to fund it. Also consider that CAESAR was a very good array for its year but the EFT programme wanted to take advantage of a gimbal in this respect.
F-35 will get that, idk about EPAWSS.
1 Like