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
I mean, we could argue now for the next 12 hours, in the end we have to wait what the results are from further looking onto it + the final result from the devs in an case that it goes that far
yeah that would make more sense
Arguing for the next 12 hours sounds more engaging in all fairness. 380 messages an hour and we can have part 3 before dev updates!
yeah… even first generation AESA’s had ±60 degrees in the early 2000s (zhuk-ae on mig-35, apg 77 for f-22, apg 81 f-35)
1 Like
Shouldn’t we do it than in the German EF thread as it is about it?
2 Likes
Yeah… none of his numbers add up. I really think someone should remake a report.
Tho, there’s still the issue I think that devs will consider the Hensoldt source more than the Airbus one.
Thing is with the Airbus source is that while primary it also doesn’t really mention the type of radar it is, could be any.
If someone remakes a report, they’d have to plainly explain that Germany is only procuring the Mk1 (as of now) with sources attached, show the German flag with the high number demanded (meaning it can’t be Mk0 prototype)…
Leonardo has an ECRS Mk.2 brochure suggesting what I said earlier, w/r/t RAF Tranche 3s being the AESA-equipped planes, is what is planned so far:
The UK will replace Captor M systems in their Tranche 3
aircraft initially to provide the platform with a world leading
Radar and EW capability for the future battlespace.
So we could make a ticket and see if this one thing can get added to set the British AESA aircraft apart a little more from the CAPTOR-M plane, and the German and Italian AESA-equipped jets
Already made a ticket about how all AESA Eurofighters are missing the GPS antenna:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QG1YjZx9ycMK
1 Like
We have now Tranche 2+ cough
1 Like