All ECRS variants are doing high res SAR for targeting;
Antenna isn’t doing the NCTR its the hardware in the back that is processing the SAR imagery it isn’t processed in the antenna.
4 Likes
Because it doesn’t only offer sources for Mk 1.
1 Like
Doesnt say anything if the Mk.2 has the SAR resolution for ground NCTR.
Hensoldt is the only one highlighting the SAR resolution
1 Like
… if the mk2 and mk0 typhoons doesn’t have high sar resolution why is it a feature they show off in their radar videos
1 Like
I’m seeing video by Hensoldt (Mk.1), video by Hensoldt (Mk.1) and EADS paper for German Eurofighter (so probably Mk.1)
The video is not for ecrs mk1 its from bae sytems
the video titled " HENSOLDT Eurofighter Radar Mk1" is not for the ECRS Mk.1?
The image gunjob showed is from this video. Where does it say mk1? It’s from BAE systems. Also it shows ±100 fov
2 Likes
The EADS paper dates from the time of CAESAR, so would logically be relevant to the entire CAPTOR-E family.
4 Likes
ah, so its entirely unrelated to CAPTOR
Saying entirely unrelated to captor is a bit of a stretch considering captor e was developed from caesar
1 Like
might be, but it doesnt prove anything about ECRS Mk.2 since ECRS Mk.2 DID NOT EVEN EXIST
Which btw is the exact same reason used for discarding the older Airbus slides on the Mk.1 having 100°
CAESAR is CAPTOR-M with an AESA antenna bolted to the front. ECRS Mk.0 is CAPTOR-M with a repositioner bolted to the front and an AESA antenna bolted to that repositioner. Quite a bit of commonality there isn’t there? Almost as if the production system might include features developed for the prototype.
ECRS Mk.2 is stated to have all the features of Mk.0 with various improvements.
1 Like
Also everything a Mk.0 can do was copied to Mk.2 per the Mk.2 broucher;
5 Likes
and Mk.1 is a Mk.0 with a new antenna bolted to the front, yet that changed things
Oh, also, this is what BAE’s radar simulator shows in terms of ground targets. My question is if the Mk.2 SAR mode is high enough resolution for automatic target recognition. What was developed for CAESAR doesnt matter for this question
How can the MK2 be allowed, but when multiple sources go and say the MK1 have identical or superior capabilities
to the mk1, the FoR is lowered, when a much more simple answer is that the Hendsolt chose to market the max FoR with max range, while Learnardo, Airbus, and BAE have marketed based on the max FoR, and instead the European COMMON Radar system somehow lost 10 degrees? The repositiondf, which we know is 30 degrees, gives a limit of 70 degrees for electronic scanning. Hendsolt worked on the mk1, it is near impossible for them to deliver a esa with 10 degrees less than the previous plate.
And airbus has repeatedly shown the MK1 with the MK0 and MK2 with no mention of FoR differences, something Learnardo and BAE would be marketing if it was true.
1 Like
Hensoldt built a +/-60 E-Scan antenna? They might have their own reasons for that, but we don’t have that information. All of this relies on inference, you’re inferring that they’re only covering the full power zone. There isn’t firm language that supports that, @Dontkev-psn has taken the initiative to try and confirm that, but you’re not getting a report forwarded on the basis of you believe Hensoldt means something else.
They are marketing it? All the Leonardo marking is showing a 200° FoR, and by contrast the Hensoldt marketing is 180° FoV. So they do market themselves in distinct ways.
4 Likes
to add on that, got recently an answer from the BW Press / BAAINBw which had allready some nice informations in it, but nothing which would help us in any regard Yet, additional I send an FOI to the german MoD, another mail went to hensoldt
6 Likes