Hard to say if its intentional that they aren’t scanning the additional area or if they couldn’t get the “optimized max power on target” that ECRS Mk.2 advertises at.
1 Like
1 Like
Have you got evidence either of those used it in real life? IIRC it was part of the RET.8 upgrade, which only the Italian Tornadoes got.
No link?
Well…you are.
You, correctly, delineated FoV, but then you refuse to accept it as FoV on Hensoldt’s site.
Despite every other aircraft in-game theoretically able to get weapons from identical airframes of other nations, even if the nation itself never used them.
Gaijin for some reason doesnt include the Tornado into that, and keep them all very unique and specific. For the most part I dont mind that much, its kinda nice them being unique, but it is annoying at times where they cherry pick that rule (Napalm for example should be added to our F-4s)
Only area on the Tornado though that is genuinely stupid is the engines, but that is a matter for a different thread
MK 1 documentation is just weird ngl
Blame the Germans :P
cause if we go by the most recent stuff they started live operational testing of MK 1 on 06/08/2026
and Pfat for the ECRS MK 1 quadriga was less then a week ago, means they completed the testing in less than 2 months
Yeah, but this is ECRS1 in EA action.
Obviously, radar can’t exert levels of power required, across the entire FoR.
Can’t be bothered to look up now, but there’s another ECRS video that also shows reduced angle in EA mode.
Thx for the PDF, btw.
Yeah, but this is all conjecture vs actual graphics and videos by OEM. Cmon…
Ofc I do, but apparently USAF isn’t a source primary enough.
Sorry, no.
What I can say, though, is Tornado guys are very helpful and most are Brits, so there should be no problem.
What testing?
There has been a prototype airframe for the Mk1 for a few years I think.
Been a Mk2 Prototype since last year.
So, they were probably just final crossing the "T"s and dotting the "I"s before it entered service officially.
Last month
This month
PFAT flight
So it was probably just double checking to make sure everything about the upgrade worked correctly and the install was fine.
Probably doesnt need more than a few sorties to check its all working as it should be. Just a more complex version of doing testing after replacing an engine for example
i am not gonna bring up that they reference MK 1 step 1 in that first article btw (would be for the german EF topic)
May not be the best place, but is anyone elses filter keep resetting to friendly only? I think its whenever i start up the game it switches and its just getting real annoying and was wondering if this could be reported as a bug?
Also, is there a way of knowing what filter mode your in without looking at friendlies and checking if they pop up?
2 Likes
Ive not, but not really touched it recently. and probably yes
1 Like
In the context of aircraft sensors the industry standard is the FoV refers to what the sensor can see without any sort of repositioning, while FoR refers to what the sensor can see with repositioning.
It is physically impossible for an aesa radar. See at an angle of +/- 90° (180° FoR). Having an FoV of 180° would also contradict the brochure which shows an FoR of 180° and an FoV of 120°-140°.
So it is pretty obvious that the term fov being used on the website is a mistake.
1 Like
Cheers, although im not entirely sure if this is present on all radars as i dint think ive seen this before…
Is it?
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20190137601
Field of View (FOV): The total angular space on which the sensor is capable of making intentional measurements.
Field of regard (FOR): The total angular space on which the sensor makes intentional measurements, typically expressed in AZ and EL angles.
In MSAs, FoV and FoR are the same, but in ESAs aren’t due scan losses.
