We just know they’re high enough that T1s can’t use them iirc?
Its not that you cant talk about it, it just seems like you are bringing it up non-stop with almost no real relevance to the convo at hand, while also repeatedly bringing up a feature (radar peak output power ) as the defining point of radar quality despite multiple people over the last weak pointing out that that is EXTREMELY flawed reasoning .
Its fine to bring up the Su-35 when relevant, but borderline spamming something along the lines of “Su-35 best fighter in the world cuz irbis-e 20kW output!!!” Gets kind of annoying…
Thats just power draw, not power output
3 Likes
I dont think it does, but gaijin will make sure it does.
fairs i should replace it with most range (publically)
1 Like
I’d wager that even that is a moot point. Radar is a REALLY complex area that can’t be boiled down into simple - bigger number = better. Take the Sukhoi claim of range - no reason to dispute it. However range is meaningless without definition.
Example - some OTH radars can see literally thousands of miles away and are super powerful.
BIG RANGE + BIG POWER = brilliant radar?
BUT - they can struggle to reliably detect something as small as an aircraft. Or even an airliner to be honest. Plus they need antenna arrays that are measured in hundreds of square meters. Like this.
Summary - Su-35 may have a brilliant radar. It may not. However, the big numbers mean nothing without a whole load of information that nobody in their right mind would share on a War Thunder forum.
Same for CAPTOR - most of the super-secret stuff that makes the damn thing work is super-secret, so most of this is guesswork.
Anecdotally, I’ve yet to come across someone who knows the subject matter (Typhoons, F-35s, etc.) who isn’t VERY positive about the fidelity of modern radars and sensors even compared to that of 10 years ago.
Edit to add - Sorry, went into techno-jargon a bit. OTH stands for Over-the-Horizon Radar - it is very cool in terms of physics but let’s not go there!
5 Likes
It does have definition though, it gives the cross section it can detect something at. most other radar brochures just have a range and no cross section of what it’s actually detecting (3m^2).
Eurofighter
Spoiler
What’s defined as a fighter?
Does anyone have a rafale radar brochure? surely there’s something similar to this for its pesa radar
ECR 90 (development captor)
Spoiler
See that’s the issue, we don’t know.
This is a fighter.
So is one of these.
Obviously detecting one at 100nm+ is much more plausible than the other, but it’s a very wide range to give. “100nm+ against fighters” realistically is a marketing number to pull funding and little else.
This is a much more useful piece of info. It gives an RCS number and the detection range for a known aircraft threat (flanker)
2 Likes
i just use flanker a lot as an example because the british use it a lot as a comparison even though russia was hardly a threat after 1991
Please send a confirmation or something stating this has been declassified.
1 Like
In fairness, that is an M-Scan and I think some fairly early specs for it and we have absolutely no idea what the CAPTOR-E can detect though I want to say I saw something about it being able to detect small drones at long distance and we can assume that counter stealth tech was a core part of it as well
and this was already known. kinda annoying the Rafale turns better than the Typhoon
1 Like
Thank you. Before posting docs (especially about more “recent” aircraft), please always provide confirmations like those. It’ll be unhidden
4 Likes
I took it from flame if yk him on the british euro thread. also gunjob had no objections to it being posted when i posted it there so i assumed it was already declassified (because it was already posted there)
3 Likes
Also, i’m stupid what’s the difference between “coherent” modes and them being interleaved? What does this functionally change in the radar irl
1 Like
I have no idea what “Coherent” is, but “interleaving” is where the radar switches between modes with each scan, essentially atlernating (in this case, between HPRF and MPRF) At least that is my understanding
Here are the actual requirements btw, in case you were wondering, as the above graphs are just a percentage of this
Doesn’t the APG-77 output 20kw?
Yes, that was why I was saying it was a silly point to make. As others have already pointed out in the past when peak power output was brought up as the reason the Irbis-E was the best radar in the world, there are other older radars with similar or even vastly superior power output. Power output of a radar means very little without much more context.
As a matter of fact, power output is often managed or even mitigated (among other methods) to provide LPI capabilities to a radar, something the Irbis-E notably lacks afaik, which will put it at a significant disadvantage compared to the AESA radars all other nations could have access to when/if gaijin ever begins modelling said features.
2 Likes