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
Damn. Only hope for the the GPS antenna then
That was what I was thinking.
120 total | +/- 60
1 Like
Technically, the easier report would be to push for MK2 on the German EF.
After all:
Would such a report work? Probably not, but it couldn’t hurt to try.
I am certain that Airbus already sed that the Captor-E for Germany and Spain will have ±100 field of regard
Source: Airbus https://share.google/FCYBLdorLBm91wE5L
1 Like
Yeah, that would probably be the easier approach.
But I think Gaijin wants some uniqueness between the Typhoons, with the intro of PIRATE, that already removes 1 of the core differences and so far loadouts are almost identical too which would be the other core way to make a bit of difference between them
The Airbus posts are from 2020, and pre-dates Hensoldt’s physical development of the Mk.1 version of the radar. Airbus likely drew on existing values from the extant Mk.0 radar, which at the time was called ESCAN.
Hensoldt explain that initialisation (i.e. the start) of full development of Mk.1 was after this June 2020 budget authorisation: Future-proofing the Eurofighter Typhoon | HENSOLDT
More recent sources from Hensoldt, who are the Mk.1 radar’s design authority quote 90 degrees for the production radar.
i think for the most part they dont do that for stuff for things like radar that typically require major upgrade programs at special facilities
90 degrees FOV not the FOR this is the maximum limit that can be achieved with the AESA limits and not with the mechanical limits.
Plus MK.1 is literally an enhanced version of the MK.0 it make literally no sense to make a worse radar with lower FOR, and defence companies don’t work by drawing values from old stuff, the values represented are specifications that must be met otherwise noone will pay them to make the radars, if it came out less capable than the MK.0
there’s no way the mech gimbal itself achieves ±90 degrees.
Pffff, i flipped it, thanks for the correction.
