In game ? not really. It’s gonna be better than most fighters at top tier but it still lacks in cinematic performance and ECM won’t be there for quite a long time (certainly not gonna make it stronger on the EX either for balance reasons).
why do you think the US just stopped developing AESA radars after the APG-81?
1 Like
They didn’t ? The APG-85 and 82(V)X are literally still ongoing currently. The APG-81 has also notoriously had severe issues with double tracks, where a single target could appear as two different objects on the display.
Uhm they didn’t?
ECM can be expected next update before December for the reason of keeping 4.5 useful ofcourse the pentagon says that f15EX can pull like crazy but it war thunder I don’t know if that will help because for the pilots it pulls better because of the fly by wire but in war thunder that doesn’t help
so a upgraded f15E is really what it is in game the f-15 silent eagle would be a nice addition with 5th gen or squad vehicle
so, if the APG-81 is generally considered roughly comparable to the CAPTOR E while being much older, and the US has continued to develop fighter AESA while putting many more resources into it than european efforts, that technological gap would be largely maintained
i know, he just thinks that there isnt a technological gap between US and European fighter AESA
1 Like
you do know that europe has been fucking around with AESA´s since before 2000´s aswell…
and age is not proof of capability
atp this is just cope, fighter AESA have been operational in US for years before the first flight tests of prototype European fighter AESA that never made it to service
proof for fighter AESA?
1 Like
That’s not how we mesure the level of technological advancement of a weapon system. The APG-81’s software and overall integration within the JSF has taken a lot of delays, thus inducing a slower technological advancement over other already fielded designs. Not to mention that in the end, when you look at AESAs, what matters is gonna be the lithograpy available in the country for the MMICs and the processing power given to the backend (and also the software but that’s impossible to compare). On that regard, the US have a barely noticeable advance on both those aspects, to not say none. Some countries like germany and France even have better lithography proceedings for their MMICs, so idk what to tell you. American exceptionalism isn’t real man.
Don’t forget that the US coastguard has operated a British AESA radar since 2002 I think?
(Seaspray)
AMSAR and CAESAR bro.
1 Like
you got AMSAR, CESAR, think RBE i guess
but like lol your argument is built on basically nothing “but we made it earlier so its better”
2 Likes
If stuff like that was purely linear then sure I guess. It’s not tho.
I didn’t say that. I said that there no proof that the apg 81 is technologically more sophisticated than the Captor E which was the initial question. Later ones are a different question.
1 Like
Very true development of technology is not linear at all.
Otherwise certain countries would be literal multiple decades behind in tech which they arent irl
1 Like
2008 and 2006 for first flight tests respectively. compared to APG-63v2 which entered actual service, not testing, but operational service on a fighter in 2000.
this is assuming other countries do not have similar issues they just dont talk about
not comparable at all to fighter AESA development
1 Like
Then I will just say that the first fielded ESA was on the MiG-31, so surely the Russians have better designs. The APG-63(V)2 being in service in the 2000s with its performance and level of integration of digital processing is pretty normal.
Because they don’t, in europe we also have equivalents of your congressional investigations. If nothing is said, it’s that it works as intented. Quite simple, do not go on the speculation side.
1 Like
PESA =/= AESA and MiG-31 radar was extremely advanced for its time so i dont know what your point is
The MiG-31 was basically behind for everything inside of it. The E-scan is a choice no one made because of how shit analog beam forming was and still is. The Zaslon had worse performance than contemporary solid state arrays with digital processing units as a backend. So my point is that no, you don’t keep your leap linearly at all.
Me because that’s the case in wt
Irl is irrelevant to me