Yup, I imagine it was on-par with most AESA in that respect. (at least to as significant a degree as possible for an M-Scan)
Yeah, a Good radar is only as valuable as the systsms or the operator using them.
According to this source, the CAPTOR-Ms CPU was so good it was later adopted for the F-35:
The LRU hardware is powered by standardized CPUs which are also used on other components of the Eurofighter. The processors found on the CAPTOR-C are of the 68020 series designed by Motorola. They were first marketed in the 1980s, thus providing inadequate performance in certain operating modes. The chips were later replaced with more modern PowerPC-4 processors for Tranche 2 (CAPTOR-M equipped) aircraft. The PowerPC CPU has found wide applications in other fighter aircraft as well, such as the F-35. The radar has seen a significant performance boost as a result of this hardware upgrade. A prime example to demonstrate the performance increase is the SAR mapping mode. The quality of the radar images has been improved from a 1-meter resolution down to 30 centimeters for CAPTOR-M. - Source
1 Like
Oh! Thats the second source ive seen claim the CAPTOR-M has 30cm accueacy for SAR!
1 Like
I found a link to this blog on a forum and the person in that claimed it was written by one of the engineers that worked on the CAPTOR-M. No idea if its true or not, but so far has tracked rather well with other sources.
This is two different systems, though LPI does in effect, and is used to describe both
The APG-77 has the additional opportunity as an ESA to use a synthetic signal that spreads the radiated power over a wider part of the frequency spectrum simultaneously; lowering the apparent power in any one band, this is possible due to the multitude of T/R modules and that the emitted signal can be digital synthetized from these returns due to the electronics on board to act as if it was a much stronger emission in any particular band.
The CAPTOR-M since it only has a single TWT can only reduce the power output to maintain sufficient Signal to Noise to maintain a trackfile.
They both effectively reduce the probability of detection but the former is much more effective than the latter, though it can be worked around, but far less useful detail is recoverable and it leads to an increased number of false positive hits to the RWR, due to changes in the background level of radiation being the discriminating factor for throwing an LPI detection warning.
I’m fairly certain the the APG-77 would also be able to use similar “minimal radiated power” mode for any given track as well, as it seems like relatively easy thing to implement that would have an outsized impact on detection range, but as to how it could be mechanized for the APG-77 I don’t know.
Depending on the specific layout of the targets the energy may be able to be spent more efficiently on volumes known to (or likely to) contain threats which increases the likelihood that they will be tracked, also it can be done near instantaneously without interrupting other operations of the radar by an ESA where the M-Scan needs to scan the entire search volume reducing effective dwell time for any given contact, and this adversely impacts the point where it would become saturated at longer ranges.
But for this to actually ever be relevant IRL things would be well into the opening stages of WWIII at that point, so the reduced performance is much less relevant to any sort of realistic scenario and so remains an edge case.
2 Likes
not to the same level as true -ESA. CAPTOR-M should be slightly worse at this than a PESA (due to electronic steering) and outright worse than an AESA.
i am talking about the ability of the radar itself to carry out EW operations. and same thing for jamming, an AESA radar is inherently harder to jam than an M-scan radar. precise beam control allows for better LPI and better use of power.
isnt it just a motorola CPU that was good so they used it for both? also, F-35 seems to have an upgraded version anyways.
For T2 onwards it uses a different CPU, the F-35 adopted the same CPU
PowerPC is Apple-IBM-Motorola from wiki.
and do you have proof F-35 used the same one?
Only this source which has tracked true so far
well it seems they are replacing the old one (improved PowerPC probably) with a new one called ICP that has 25x the processing power.
Youre always talking bad about euro chill man rafale aint gonna let you fly
No, it’s fair to recognise that the Eurofighter consortium lags behind other countries when they opt to not employ technologies which have already been in service with such other countries for decades.
It’s not a case of the consortium ‘refraining’ from being on the forefront of technology, it’s that they simply aren’t on the forefront of technology.
3 Likes
It’s more like European nations don’t want to fork out the cash for this stuff.
Don’t you forget that companies like BAe and rolls Royce still very much get paid by countries like the USA to design their stuff.
It’s not about tech it’s about money.
1 Like
The cost of development for the Rafale was three times lower than the Eurofighter programme and the Rafale still used an AESA radar over a decade before the Eurofighter (among other things). So no, it’s not a ‘money’ issue, it’s a competency issue.
1 Like
I think this dude might be trying to rage bait people, could be wrong though.
Yeah no wonder the Rafale was cheaper it piggy backed off of a ton of development already conducted.
Care to remind me who had experience in unstable delta fly by wire jets ?
Oooooh
Israelis
They came up with the whole canard system did they not.
Mirages were also not aerodynamically unstable.
1 Like
Man forgot the entire Mirage 2000 family.
Israeli jets were also not fly by wire. They indeed added canards, but that’s not what I said. Reading problems ?
2 Likes