So what you are trying to say is that pitot intake ( on F-16) can achieve the same performance as variable intake (on f-15 )up to Mach 1, hence fixed intake on Typhoon vs variable inlet on Mig-29 should have similar behavior ?
Seem reasonable enough , what is your reply Andraxxus?

No, I’m saying the F-16 uses a pitot intake which produces 1 normal shock only, which is the least efficient kind of intake possible above M1.0. Yet at M1.2, the difference vs variable ramps is negligible.

The Typhoon uses a fixed ramp, which produces one oblique shock followed by a normal shock, which is far superior to pitot and will perform similarly to a variable geometry system up to about M1.6 and is probably only about 5% down at M2.0. Yet even though less efficient after M2.0, the Typhoon’s T-D is such that it still manages a higher top speed that the MiG-29. A fixed ramp basically functions the same as the fixed cone inlets on early fighters.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, I didn’t get that comment either, they’re also coastal countries. The UK is pretty small as country size goes and it has tankers.

I agree…if you have a full blown war there shouldn’t be an airliner flying around the area. I just cannot figure out why Russia tries to deny that they shot an airliner.

Furthermore…BUK has +22 km altitude range…it is almost like Patriot…very capable and mobile as we have seen…but not invisible as we can see in the video where the BUK drives with only 3 missiles left.

Smoking gun has been detected.

Well Russia itself didn’t do it. If it had been Russia they likely would have been able to ID the aircraft from the S-400 complex sitting just over the border. There’s also no way a BUK missile could have reached the given location from across the Russian border either.

Additionally, we know that a cargo plane was shot down a few days earlier, so at least one BUK TELAR was likely going around a missile short anyway. So that on its own is hardly conclusive. That said it’s highly likely that it was the rebels but the real lesson of future benefit to learn is not to fly over war zones and that’s why this report fails.

That’s plain lying. Nice work.

Nic

If all it’s doing is cancelling radar reflection, how would anyone know it was on? The net result is a cancelled signal, i.e. no signal according to the marketing bumf.