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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
It’s barely relaxed in stability the aerodynamic design of the 2000 is not advanced enough to keep the nose down if it was as unstable as the EFT/rafale.
Most jets actually have a level of CG shift as the 2000 does. On the other hand most do not have the CG shift of EFT and Rafale.
Rafale had 2 stakeholders The French air force and the Navy.
Typhoon had to meet the differing requirements of the 4 different nations!
If you have ever tried to manage a project the fewer stakeholders you have the easier the whole programme is. Germany didnt want the Captor-M they wanted the APG-65 a US made Radar, ready to go and cheaper.
We are also being disengenous and not comparing the earlier Rafale with earlier 2005 Typhoon.
We are comparing the Rafale from 2018 with the Typhoon of 2008ish
When Captor-E is rolled out and the upgrades to PIRATE their will not be a huge ammount of difference in the Radar department with the Captor-E probably being superior in some areas.
Still closer (and thus more experience) to the eurocanards design than the Tornado, going back to who initially brought more expertise.
Well. The tornado does have the benefit of being a jet I guess. And it has 2 engines ! That’s 1 entire more engine than what France used to do