I do
2 Likes
holy clutter
Blame their procurement ig
looks kinda like the gripens
Dont blame them to early, we might be on to something, there are good sources which point to the result that the Mk.1 has the same angles as the Mk.0 and Mk.2
Wdym ?
The radar they choose does provide them an AESA sooner than say the ECRS mi2 for the Brits, but it will also be less overall capable in the end. The British radar claims adding the ability to jam while scanning/tracking which seems to be the flavor of the new generation AESA radars, but Germany might be missing the opportunity
Ok ok
not really
2 Likes
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.