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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The max targets change is a mistake. I’ve raised it with a Dev.
The single engined delta wing
design…what a good idea that was.