AESA stays King:)))))
Tbf, that is a very big simplification. There are multitude of way AESA can be used, some just like the standard MSA.
Even then it is much, much faster with how the beam moves
4 Likes
Reports being actioned…zero!
We are making a difference
1 Like
Now we just need to start some discussions in the german EF topic as well, it’s not far from Part 2 either
Oh god, they are about to remodel the Typhoon to be made out of Aluminium
What are the differences between mk 0,1 and 2?
I would take the prototype right now the Captor M…man it makes flying Typhoon miserable.
That’s wild thanks.
Lead you mean….
Technology used.
0 is the worst of them
1 is much better, with block 2 it is going to be upgraded to be closer to mk.2
2 is the best of them
1 Like
2 Likes
With cost of plane overall rcs… not really benefit outside of WT tbh
Okay but like in what way lol
1 better than 0 (don’t ask me what way, idk they did not disclose it) and adds some EW capability
2 uses 2 types of t/r and is much better at EW.
There is a case to be made that Mk1 will have better range/power output (than Mk.2) because it (allegedly) uses all GaN T/R Modules, while the Mk2 uses both GaN and GaAs (allegedly) but has dedicated hardware for simultaneous EW capability compared to Mk.1.
The base Mk.0 should still be better than the Rafale AESA based on T/R count alone(they both use GaAs T/R), although in game that would probably only manifest in better range.
So if implemented right now there wouldn’t be a considerable difference in game.
Maybe the swashplate design on the Mk.2 allows for more elevation? I’m not sure.
Mk.0, Mk.1 and Mk.2 should have roughly 100° Azimuth Radar coverage.
1 Like
I doubt that “Extended Range Missile Guidance” is one of the key improvements listed for ECRS Mk.2 over previous versions. Also it requires the airframe to have enhanced power delivery systems fitted, so clearly draws much more power than the previous radars.
2 Likes