@Gunjob we need the Toothbrush AESA angle pic in here
2 Likes
Should be. If it has IFF, then the symbology should be present
Lightning F6
Tornado F3
Granted, can only test a handful of aircraft, but I cant think of any reason why a Lightning F6 would have it but something from another nation wouldnt, so long as it has IFF (or at least if that mode has IFF I think) .
If you use the PPI mode (round one) rather than the B-Scope (Square one), then it should still be in the same place in the bottom left
All hail the toothbrush
3 Likes
Long live the toothbrush!
Toothbrush Technology for the Win :3
1 Like
When discussing sensors FoV is nearly always defined as the area that a sensor can see without being moved. While FoR is defined as the maximum area that a sensor can scan by being mechanically scanned. For example:
The easiest example of this is aircraft targeting pods where the FoV is the area the camera can see (typically a cone a few degrees wide), while the FoR is the area the camera can be gimballed to look at (i.e. most of a sphere minus a bit backwards.
Spoiler
The equivalent for a gimballed AESA radar would be that FoV is the area covered by electronic scanning. While FoR is the expanded area which can be scanned if the antenna is moved.
The wording in that patent is a bit clunky, but it appears to be consistent with the normal definition. If you imagine the sensor as a digital camera on a tripod (a camera is after all a sensor that measures light) then the FoV is what you can see through the viewfinder; it is the total angular space within which the camera’s sensor is able to measure light. While the FoR is the area which the camera can be pointed within on it’s tripod; it is the total angular space within which measurements can be taken (i.e. you can point eh camera anywhere within the gimbal range of your tripod and take a light measurement (i.e. a photo).
In mechanical scanned arrays the best equivalent would be that FoV is the beam width, while the FoR is the gimbal limits of the antenna.
An FoV of 180° would mean the AESA plate can see a full 180° arc, which is physically impossible. That that is the laws of physics, not my opinion.
You realise your name is on a list now for potentially breaching the Official Secrets Act.
NOBODY is supposed to know about …whispers… the toothbrush.
1 Like
I find it simply fascinating, how this community can argue about track colour using classified documents (did not happen, a hyperbole), while at the same time consulting a toothbrush.
well can you see the bristles of your toothbrush when holding it 90° sideways to your face?
knew i forgot to specify something
The same applies for the IRST one the rafale, so I personally take it that it’s usually industry standard.
But as every standards, you still see the odd brochure that doesn’t follow it correctly
The last example I can think of is in that meteor brochure where they use the ISP definition loosely by referencing it instead of gaz ejection speed (ISP being gaz ejection speed divided by gravity). So it gave values 10 times higher than we could expect, making quite a big confusion when it came to the efficiency of ramjet engines