If you had to choose between Rafale or F-35

Of course, you keep telling yourself that.

The source is also cited in the footer and it actually derives from a radar expert on the project.

Errr Bronk’s report is not an official RUSI report, check disclaimer… Btw, what is his problem with Rafale? 16 occurences in an unrelated report???

“some sources suggest that it will be capable”… now that’s serious…

my little toe suggest me not to take anything you say seriously.. and it is just as a reliable source as what you posted

Of course, you keep telling yourself that.

Royal United Services Institute
Justin Bronk

Unlocking the Eurofighter’s Full Potential
WHITEHALL REPORT 1-15

The source is also cited in the footer and it actually derives from a radar expert on the project.

“some sources suggest that it will be capable”… now that’s serious…

my little toe suggest me not to take anything you say seriously.. and it is just as a reliable source as what you posted

“usually”? usually everybody does what he wants to… there’s no absolute rule about it

There are other subtle clues that it’s GaN.

https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/whr_1-15_maximising_european_combat_air_power_0.pdf

Against LO designs such as the T-50, J-20 and export-focused
FC-31, the Eurofighter will struggle in the air-superiority role without
CAPTOR-E, since CAPTOR-M cannot reliably detect and target such designs.
Some sources have suggested the CAPTOR-E will be capable of detecting
LO designs such as the F-35 out to around 60 km and PIRATE IRST has
great potential for detecting stealth designs which are, by nature, large
and hot with a correspondingly strong infrared (IR) signature.7

Progressive
enhancements to PIRATE and the accuracy of passive location and electronic
warfare capabilities through the DASS, coupled with the radar 2 CAPTOR-E
being developed for the RAF, together offer a boost to situational awareness
and detection capabilities, which should make RAF Typhoons formidable
opponents against even LO designs from the early 2020s.8

So a 0.0001-0.001m^2 target at 60km. Does that sound like any Captor-sized GaAs radar to you?;)

+ or X.1 is usually used for software block updates. A new number is used for a new version.

“usually”? usually everybody does what he wants to… there’s no absolute rule about it

Leonardo says on its website –
“Leonardo is at the forefront in the different fields of electronics, as in the case of GaN (Gallium Nitride) MMIC (Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits) developed in our Foundry for the new generation of multifunctional AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Antenna) radars in the various operating bands L, S, C and X, for sea, land, air and space applications.”

An unnamed company representative was quoted as saying at Farnborough in 2014 that Selex UK was using the former Filtronics foundry at Newton Aycliffe for its GaAs requirements, with reference to the ES-05 Raven.

Hmmm… okay I may be wrong on this. It’s a problem with consortium organisation structures, it can be confusing to know who’s doing what.

and why not?

they can call it any way they like, what’s the problem? Is there any rule stating that a product has to be named in a particular way?

+ or X.1 is usually used for software block updates. A new number is used for a new version.

AFAIK (i may be wrong) 5 foundries in Europe are able/certified to build GaN modules. However, workshare was divided between these foundries and UMS got the Xband radar part. I wouls need timùe to find further details sry. This is just from memory.

Leonardo says on its website –
“Leonardo is at the forefront in the different fields of electronics, as in the case of GaN (Gallium Nitride) MMIC (Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits) developed in our Foundry for the new generation of multifunctional AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Antenna) radars in the various operating bands L, S, C and X, for sea, land, air and space applications.”

An unnamed company representative was quoted as saying at Farnborough in 2014 that Selex UK was using the former Filtronics foundry at Newton Aycliffe for its GaAs requirements, with reference to the ES-05 Raven.

So why is it called Radar 2 and not Radar 1+ or 1.1?

and why not?

they can call it any way they like, what’s the problem? Is there any rule stating that a product has to be named in a particular way?

Show me a more up-to-date article stating the contrary.

Evidence?

Halloweene agrees with me on the fact that the TRM development is coming from the same place. Certainly for GaN.

AFAIK (i may be wrong) 5 foundries in Europe are able/certified to build GaN modules. However, workshare was divided between these foundries and UMS got the Xband radar part. I wouls need timùe to find further details sry. This is just from memory.

They all state it as Captor-E is GaA, and radar 2 is the UK specific version.

Your own words on the previous page show that your lying. You state not once, but twice that radar 2 is not the same radar. I’m done with this as obviously you are going to stay true to form, and try to twist the debate.

So why is it called Radar 2 and not Radar 1+ or 1.1?

Don’t play semantics, we know it’s the same baseline, but the actual technology is different. Radar 2 is not just the culmination of Selex development, but QinetiQ development too, whereas Radar 1/1+ is Selex alone.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Bright%20Adder

The AESA situation is complex, as there are, effectively, two different evolution paths which will be harmonized into the final product: in addition to the british Bright Adder demonstrator, the Euroradar consortium, led by SELEX Galileo and comprising Cassidian and Indra, is working on the Captor-E, development of which was announced at the Farnborough International Air Show on 20 July 2010.

They all state it as Captor-E is GaA, and radar 2 is the UK specific version.

Your own words on the previous page show that your lying. You state not once, but twice that radar 2 is not the same radar. I’m done with this as obviously you are going to stay true to form, and try to twist the debate.

Again, switching the arguements. Find one, one statement that radar 2 is not the UK specific Captor-E but an entirely different radar as you stated. Find one release, statement, mention of GaN based TRM post 2010 for the Typhoon AESA.. You can’t, your wrong, the rest is just a smokescreen.

Entirely different, no. Different, yes. GaN, yes. Ultimate version, yes. Later date, yes.

Your? No. You’re.

Find me one statement saying Radar 2 is GaAs. I found a link saying the ultimate version will be GaN, shown that Radar 2 is the ultimate version and shown that TRM development is uniform across Europe for fighter AESAs. The least you owe me is a link saying Radar 2 is GaAs.

Again, switching the arguements. Find one, one statement that radar 2 is not the UK specific Captor-E but an entirely different radar as you stated. Find one release, statement, mention of GaN based TRM post 2010 for the Typhoon AESA.. You can’t, your wrong, the rest is just a smokescreen.

Btw, don’t even pull that different versions crap. I stated that the radar 2 was the UK specific version of Captor-E. You stated it was an entirely different radar, several times.

Now a typical bait and switch happening on the TRM debate. Stick to the point at hand- which is your argument that radar 2 is a GaN TRM radar, and entirely different from Captor-E 1+

Your entire premise is based on a from a link in 2010, which vaguely mentions they may switch to GaN in the future..

Releases in 2014 showed that the consortium chose GaA. You insist that Radar 2 is an entirely different radar despite all releases stating that it is the UK specific Captor-E integration plan (granted the UK radar is to have some UK specific improvements).

Now I ask you:
First, which company is developing this entirely different radar? Next, where is it mentioned in the MoD budget? Lastly, why has nothing since 2010 said anything about GaN, or that the UK Radar 2 program is a different radar, yet all the links I posted state the opposite?

Here is the 2014 budget. The 72 million for the development of the Captor-E is listed: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396102/20150112-EP_Plan_Document-Final_OS_to_PDF_version-2-1.pdf

Here is a Leonardo contract to integrate a new E-scan IFF to be integrated with the Captor-E (one of the UK specific improvements was IFF upgrade). Hence it is integrated on Captor-E, not some entirely different radar as you postulate.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/07/13/Leonardo-to-study-Typhoon-friend-or-foe-capability-under-UK-program/2041468420660/
http://www.janes.com/article/62334/farnborough-2016-leonardo-finmeccanica-launches-iff-study-for-uk-typhoon

Here is BAE stating explicitly that the UK radar is Captor-E with UK specific improvements :
–http://aviationweek.com/shownews/bae-begins-e-scan-radar-test-flights

In other words, the case is closed, your wrong and as per usual: assert that you are right in spite of all evidence, and try to reshape the debate to appear correct.

I already posted several articles saying they’re different versions. Your articles say nothing to the contrary… a pointless post on your behalf. yeah, it’s the same baseline but with GaN TRMs and RF attack and RF cyberwarfare.

https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/whr_1-15_maximising_european_combat_air_power_0.pdf

The UK’s version of CAPTOR-E (Radar 2 Extended
Assessment Phase) is being developed to take advantage of some of this work
and build on it to incorporate inputs from PIRATE and the DASS much more
than the current sensor suite centred on CAPTOR-M.

Progressive
enhancements to PIRATE and the accuracy of passive location and electronic
warfare capabilities through the DASS, coupled with the radar 2 CAPTOR-E
being developed for the RAF, together offer a boost to situational awareness
and detection capabilities, which should make RAF Typhoons formidable
opponents against even LO designs from the early 2020s.8 Other partner
states are not yet signed up to such a comprehensive sensor-suite upgrade,
although Italy has showed interest, particularly in the radar 2 version
of CAPTOR-E. Spain and Germany are currently committed to the radar
1+ version of CAPTOR-E, which offers standard air-to-air AESA capability
as well as limited air-to-ground search functions including high-definition
SAR mapping. However, it does not imply the same level of commitment to
develop the sensor-fusion, electronic warfare and communications potential
of the CAPTOR-E architecture.

http://armadainternational.com/assets/images/pdf/Aircraft_Self-Protection.pdf

The latestsupport to self-protectionwill
however originate from the new aesa radar
which is to replace the Captor system,
providing in a spiralled programme with
passive, active and cyberwarfare RF
capabilities.

What can I say, RUSI know more than you. If it was just a software block, they’d add the baseline version and then update later.

Quote Originally Posted by Starfish Prime View Post

It’s settled for good. Radar 2 is coming in 2021. It’s a well established fact that 1 and 1+ are GaAs and 2 is GaN. Show me a radar 3 if you believe otherwise.

Now a typical bait and switch happening on the TRM debate. Stick to the point at hand- which is your argument that radar 2 is a GaN TRM radar, and entirely different from Captor-E 1+

Your entire premise is based on a from a link in 2010, which vaguely mentions they may switch to GaN in the future..

Releases in 2014 showed that the consortium chose GaA. You insist that Radar 2 is an entirely different radar despite all releases stating that it is the UK specific Captor-E integration plan (granted the UK radar is to have some UK specific improvements).

Now I ask you:
First, which company is developing this entirely different radar? Next, where is it mentioned in the MoD budget? Lastly, why has nothing since 2010 said anything about GaN, or that the UK Radar 2 program is a different radar, yet all the links I posted state the opposite?

Here is the 2014 budget. The 72 million for the development of the Captor-E is listed: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396102/20150112-EP_Plan_Document-Final_OS_to_PDF_version-2-1.pdf

Here is a Leonardo contract to integrate a new E-scan IFF to be integrated with the Captor-E (one of the UK specific improvements was IFF upgrade). Hence it is integrated on Captor-E, not some entirely different radar as you postulate.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/07/13/Leonardo-to-study-Typhoon-friend-or-foe-capability-under-UK-program/2041468420660/
http://www.janes.com/article/62334/farnborough-2016-leonardo-finmeccanica-launches-iff-study-for-uk-typhoon

Here is BAE stating explicitly that the UK radar is Captor-E with UK specific improvements :

This will introduce the baseline production standard of the radar, known as Radar 1+, and it will be these P3E(B) aircraft that will be delivered to Kuwait, making the Middle East nation the first export customer to receive aircraft fitted with the e-scan radar.The partner nations also want additional sovereign capabilities for the radar. Britain’s Radar 2 development will feature more advanced AESA capabilities such as electronic attack. Future developments of the radar are expected to include greater cross-cueing of information from the aircraft’s passive sensors and improvements in radar autonomy and lessened pilot workload.

–http://aviationweek.com/shownews/bae-begins-e-scan-radar-test-flights

In other words, the case is closed, your wrong and as per usual: assert that you are right in spite of all evidence, and try to reshape the debate to appear correct.

Has it been resolved?

I did read once that the issue was with test equipment that was not certified for the heat levels in the F-35, but I cannot confirm the source.

Given that Gilmore has not brought it up since the original report, it’s likely been fixed.

No there WAS an overheating issue in the weapons bay……. Has it been resolved?

Nic

Doesn’t the F-35 have an overheating issue ?

No, it had a sealant issue, which has since been resolved.

F-35 will ultimately be better bang for buck,
if Meteor integration ever happen it will also become a good BVR platform

Doesn’t the F-35 have an overheating issue ?