Yeah, it does.
No, it doesn’t.
And the USNavy tells for how much:
I’m not saying ECRS2 should be clipped, but we just need the same rules applied for all and these aren’t even game rules but physics.
Btw, this video you posted as a proof, the INDRA has the exact same one, but that one somehow isn’t admissible.
See the problem?
I mean, that’s logical, if it is the same video, it comes from now deleted BAE website, and talks about BAE radar, so INDRA had no talk in it…
iirc there was 2 main reasons it was never (or very rarely) done, and so if it was ever done, there arent any pictures of it
-
They almost always deployed with fuel tanks. Its really rare to see ANY weapon mounted on those pylons actually.
-
There were concerns about the balance of the aircraft after dropping 1 x 2K GBU, and still having another on the opposite pylon. So it was rarely done in practice. Likewise the same with something like Storm Shadow, though we have seen it done in training, but the weapon was probably not actually dropped.
In OP Granby they carreid 2 on their belly and then had Buc S2Bs mark the targets with a laser. But they needed fuel tanks to get out to the combat area. (Hindenburgs I think as well)
The scan angle beyond 90° is the same and it explicitly says MK0/1/2 in the bottom left corner of the video, which is from mid 2025, ergo way after the development started.
Why this isn’t admissible, for example?
I hear you and I completely agree.
I’m just saying consistency.
The Indra video pre-dates ECRS Mk1 existing so that’s why its not accepted as the claim in the video contradicts the modern FoV(they obviously mean FoR on their page for the Mk1) claim by Hensoldt on their product page. This video works as proof for the Leonardo manufactured radars as well as the multiple brochure that confirmed the 200° FoR for those Leonardo radars.
How is that obvious?
You think Hensoldt is so incompetent that they don’t know the difference or what?
Consistency about what?
Whislt we can deduce that a 2000lb GBU on the wing pylon is probably mechanically and electrically possible, based upon both equally weighted weapons being possible there and comprable weapon types mounted there. There is no evidence for it. At least none that ive seen or heard about.
If there was, im sure it would have been reported and maybe implemented.
Yes I think translation issues happen, if the radar had a FoV of 180° then the 30° mounting would result in a FoR larger than 200°. Not to mention you can’t E-Scan past 70° typically without a different array arrangement.
I mean this is simple to work out…
FoV 60° ESA totally fine
FoV 70° ESA also totally fine
FoV 180° ESA… and we’re talking FoV not FoR so not using the repositioner.
Its on its face ridiculous.
2 Likes
on the German Hensoldt site they also only state FoV not FoR
It is not possible to scan past FoV 70° on a flat plane AESA unless you move the array around at which point we’re not talking about FoV anymore and are concerned with the FoR.
Can only tell you what it says on the german site, highly likely they were lazy with their word count and forgot some words, as it is on the site its FoV, not FoR
wouldnt be the first time they were lazy with stuff regarding the ECRS MK 1
Right and I’m telling your an FoV of 180° on a flat array IS NOT POSSIBLE. You need a different array design or you need to move it around at which point we’re moving the FoV around within the FoR.
Never disagreed with that, if you would refer to my post above
1 Like
It is true that the Hendsolt website uses the term FoV, However, it is physically impossible for an AESA radar to have 180° FoV without moving or using multiple arrays, so it is quite clear that they have mistakenly used FoV instead of FoR on their website.
This is made quite clear in one of their Eurofighter brochures, where they show the FoR of the radar to be 180°.
Compare that to ECRS MK2 why the FoR is shown to be 200°
Yes, the electronic scanning area of ECRS Mk.2 is +/-70° (140°) total. In real life the radar continuously rotates so that it can update tracks in the full +/-100° (200°) area. Gaijin represent this in game by reducing the scan speed in all modes from the electronic scan speed of well over 540°/s, down to about 180°/s, to represent the time taken for the antenna to physically move. It is not a perfect representation with real life as it is close enough considering the limitations of the game.
In your original post you were talking about reducing the maximum allowable speed of the AIRCRAFT when certain stores are carried. Hence, it seemed fairly obvious you were talking about carriage limitations, not release limitations.
And it has GBU-32 in game, so the issue is what exactly?
Care to be a productive member of the community and share where they say that? Back when the community were working together to try and get 2000 lb LGBs on the wing pylons no one could find anything like that.
3 Likes
The problem with that video is that INDRA are involved with the Mk 0, Mk 1, Mk 2 radars, and all three are referenced in the video. So it is not entirely clear whether the 200° FoR applies to all three, or just the Mk 0 / Mk 2.
As Hendsolt repeatedly put out information suggesting the FoR is 180° it raises the possibility that it does have a lower FoR than the other two. It is possible that the video is representative of the Mk 0 / Mk 2, and they just didn’t include the reduced FoR of Mk 1 to simplify things.
50 video explicitly labelled it as Mk1, with no reference to the other two, then hit would likely be fine.
1 Like
You’re kinda mixing things.
FoV is filed of view, the angle where the radar is scanning within its operational envelope, be it fixed or on a respositioner.
FoR is field of regard and it’s all the angle the radar can/must cover in order to achieve FoV.
It’s always larger than the FoV due scan losses, unlike MSA eg.
And then there’s the iFoV (instantaneous FoV), which is a beamwidth.
You can’t get FoV +/-90°, if you don’t have larger FoR in any ESA.
Now, it may be 100, as the OEM advertises, but you have graphics that don’t show 100°, but just mark scanning range >90°, which is mandatory for tracking at that angle.
Do you have the entire document?
Yeah. Either go green or yellow envelopes.
You can’t go green on one plane and yellow on another.
On ASSTA 3.1 or SLE, no.
Sure, PPRuNe.
Question, what is the likelihood that the Mk1 has an fov of ±60 instead of ±70 while using the same repositioner as the one on the Mk2 which results in the FoR of ±90*
No I am not.
Behold the full FoV within the FoR it can move within, 140° FoV within a 180° FoR. This isn’t complex…
1 Like