Decided to do a thread for it. If anyone has any thoughts:
2 Likes
I do wonder if people are reading too much into the GaN / GaAs statements. For example imagine a situation where both ECRS Mk 1 and Mk 2 have GaAs technology somewhere in them (arguably quite likely). For the Mk 1 the marketing department could have said “the radar uses new GaN technology” (which does not exclude GaAs also being used in parts of the radar). While For the Mk 2 the marketing material might still acknowledge that GaAs still used in parts of the radar.
Unless there is a statement which says that the Mk 1 uses 100% GaN components everywhere in the radar (please let me know if there is, because that would be interesting), and a statement telling you exactly where in the Mk 2 radar GaAs is used It is hard to judge to what extent the Mk 1 has a greater use of GaN. It could just be that the Mk 1s use of GaAs has never been mentioned in marketing while we Mark 2s has.
Anyway, one of the advantages of the Mk 2 over the Mk 1 is stated to be “extended range missile guidance”. So I very much doubt the Mk2 has worse range.
1 Like
Well, we can’t prove a negative as we have only statements that it uses GaN and no mention of GaAs for the Mk.1, while the Mk.2 is always mentioned with GaN + GaAs.
From a technical standpoint GaAs is inferior to GaN in almost every way except for price and linearity over signal strength and temperature (better signal quality and less noise), so there’s that.
Funnily enough while skimming through news sites the Mk.1 is also always mentioned to have a “double-swashplate” repositioner instead of a single swashplate repositioner like the Mk.2. So the Mk.1 could look exactly ahead by twisting both swashplates 180° to each other.
The only other thing I found was that the Mk.2 is said to have much more transceivers than the Mk.1 but that could mean anything.
It just says “extended range missile guidance” but not that this would be in comparison to the Mk.1 according to Leonardo. It’s listed as a “key benefit” so could as well be compared to the Captor-M or the Mk.0 or any other competitor. It could also mean that it can guide “extended range missiles” like the Meteor without doing a comparison at all lol
In an interview with the CEO of Indra she says the main technology add is the multichannel antenna with GaN TRMs, no mention of GaAs, also says Mk1 has combined modes with EA, kind of like Mk2.
Mk1 was supposed to be just a Mk0 with new GaN TRMs and Multi-functional Antenna but plans got changed and it was enhanced with Step 1 and will be developed further with Step 2 as well.
I would not be surprised if they were somewhat equal or both had their strengths than just Mk2 being better.
Is there currently an active report for improving the Praetorian DASS MLWS so that it covers about ±90° from the side?
What do you mean exactly? The MAW? Elevation or azimuth?
From the side view, the MLWS only detects within ±45° in elevation, and being the “modernized” Eurofighter with the MK0/MK1, it should already be assumed that it’s ±90º
Only if the main radar is used for the MAWs which is unknown at the moment AFAIK.
The more interesting part would be AREXIS for the Tranche 5 Eurofighters as the wingtip pods have AESA transceivers for EW. If they could act as radars in a secondary function they could also be used as a MAW for full 360° spherical coverage because of their placement (eliminating the currently used three-antenna setup and replacing it with eight). But I couldn’t anything about that…
Interestingly, the AESAs of AREXIS also use GaN only transceivers according to their website.
Superior situational awareness in a complex signal environment with high-power gallium nitride GaN Active Electronically Scanned Arrays (AESAs).
1 Like
Standard DASS jammers are also AESA
1 Like
Yes, but only with a single antenna element per direction according to this picture? The small circular polarized antenna.
Jammers are the semi-circles. They are located only in the left pod.
The circles are the RWR
2 Likes
Note ECRS has some potential buffs coming
3 Likes
No i would say thats pretty specific about the difference aha. Note ECRS mk2 equipped aircraft require a new nose, either for bandwidth/passthrough or internal volume.
1 Like
Anyone got a list of the new reports made yesterday/today?
45 is the default if sources aren’t available iirc
1 Like
I also wonder if the in-service aircraft with ECRS are going to require moving the ILS antenna from the radome to the tail fin, like it has been done on Kuwait and Qatar’s Mk.0-equipped Tranche 3A aircraft.
.jpg){kind=link}
It’s not been done on the IPAs and ZK355, but potentially it’s not important to do so for the purpose of trialling the radars.
1 Like
The common quote seems to be:
The ECRS Mk 2 radar makes use of both Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) and Gallium Nitride (GaN) semi-conductors within its array, blending the strengths of the different technologies to cost effectively provide a differentiating military capability.
So I would extect they are using GaAs to save a bit of money where it is either better suited for a nieche application than GaN or just makes no meaningful difference.
That’s not how ECRS Mk.1 works, the mid section is a single piece wedge shape, so it is physically impossible for the antenna face to point directly straight forward, it is always angled, like on Mk 2.
You can also see an animation of it in this video:
More TRMs generally means more transmitted power and better performance in AESA radars. The Mk 2 is known to consume much more power than the Mk 0 / 1, requiring Tranche 1 / 2 aircraft to have improved power delivery retrofitted (Tranche 3 jets had improved power delivery from build).
I think I remember seeing some sort of datasheet a while back where it had ECRS Mk 0 as the baseline with it’s features listed, then ECRS Mk 1 with it’s features and then ECRS Mk 2 with its features. With the implication that the features listed were in addition to the previous system. Maybe I’m mistaken then I’d have to see if I can find it again.
4 Likes
-
Eurofighter (AESA) - CAPTOR-E Electronic scan sector too small
Accepted -
Eurofighter (AESA) - CAPTOR-E scan speed should be much faster
Accepted -
German Typhoon’s Captor-E ECRS Mk1 Should have 200° Total FoR
No Label YET, Mod looks in the evening at it
7 Likes
Much appreciated
We’re only planning on fitting ECRS to Tranche 3 Typhoons, so far, right?
Doesn’t that mean our model ingame for the AESA Typhoon needs the CFT mounting bumps that German and Italian ones don’t have but our Tranche 3s all have?