https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dmAPiGRCpHaq
Pls an Mod (Pray for Gunjob)
I’m sorry, but one of this guys arguments is that it has ±90 esa.
It pains me.
1 Like
Unfortunately that’s what the sources say :(((
Seems like this report probably won’t go anywhere. The devs are probably going to point out the claim for that ±90º, and I wouldn’t blame them on that. I don’t really see how in the world an AESA flat plane could achieve literal perpendicular field of view.
Edit : I think the person that made the report is fondamentally misunderstanding the angle values.
« ECRS Mk1 is ~200°, not 180°, and certainly not ±90º »
Here it looks like they don’t realize than 180º and ±90 are actually the same thing. That’s why this report feels a little weird.
To me, looks like Hensoldt is rightfully claiming a full 180 for the entire system not the AESA plate.
The Airbus brochure does state 200, and does show a German flag, but doesn’t mention the exact radar itself as well. I think the devs would rather go with the hensoldt value which is just as primary but clearer as it clearly stated the variant of the radar
2 Likes
i believe that the aesa is probably lower power at the edges, similar to su-35 pesa that had target surveillance up until ± 125 degrees but actual tracking only at ±120 degrees. But instead of just accepting the lower power and having the full ±100 degrees, they just decided to just limit the radar to the areas where it has the full power output
Lower power at the edges yes, but being able to see at a literal right angle is just magic.
i have a question, why do you think that? ±90 degrees is already a right angle
you know that the radar has a mechanical gimbal?
2 Likes
yeah the report is definitely wrong
1 Like
The thing is, why should the Mk.1 have an smaller zone than the Mk.0, because that would be an Downgrade, not an Upgrade over it which it is
Mk.1 Video from Hensoldt
±90º is 180º, meaning the radar can look all the way to the right and all the way to the left. This is only achievable through the mechanical steering of the radar, a fix ESA plates seems to usually only cover about ±60 - ±70 (see the Rafale and Su30SM in game)
The report claimed that the ±90º was achieved through the ESA part of the radar itself, or I just didn’t understand it.
oh youre talking about electronic only. then yes, anything above 70 degrees is absurd
the report claims the ESA part can do ±120 which is not only implausible but entirely impossible. That implies electronic scanning behind the plate
yeah that report is frying me lmao
3 Likes
i mean it is theoretically possible, but not feasible due to the power loss
OK guys I went over the report again. It’s really confusing :
« However, the real Captor-E / ECRS Mk1 should have a ±120° electronic scan combined with a mechanical repositioner, providing a total FoR of approximately 200°.«
This is physically correct, what everyone would assume (with the 200º value which is the debate)
Edit : it’s in fact not even correct since they say ±120º for the ESA plage !
« Although the Hensoldt official Mk1 product page lists the radar as having ±90°, this refers only to the AESA array’s electronic scan FoV (frequency agility, waveforms, etc.), not the total field of regard.«
This is where it gets confusing. Since the reporter seems to misunderstand the ±90º value, they claim it has being the full AESA coverage.
I think they thought it’d actually be total 90º, so ±45º, which would also be insanely low coverage for an AESA radar.
If we stick to the sources, they are conflicting indeed. Could be explained by the power low at the edges, yeah.
Devs probably are going to refuse this report tho, it’s a bit confusing and the way its layed out doesn’t give the airbus source more credit than the Hensoldt one
1 Like
i dont even know where he got that number from, tbh could be a typo
I suspect he means 120 degrees (±60)
1 Like