lukosI doubt the Swiss will go for American aircraft. I heard they had several problems when it come to weapon employment – AFAIK they wouldn’t be able to load AMRAAMs without American consent.
A bit like Chile – Chileans AMRAAM do not belong to them, but to USA.
Austria managed fine. Poisoning the ink again, are we?
lukosHow many Captor-E have been ordered so far ? I believe the UK and SA are the most keen to go ahead but I am not sure on how many radars they have respectively ordered.
Contract signage, or likely? SA are going for at least 24. I believe they originally signed for 72 fighters but the last 24 are on hold, due to get some level of Captor-E, capabilities unknown.
lukosWhat are Eurofighter instantaneous and sustained roll rate ?
I’m talking about the latest data available, as I know flight control software development have been a bit chaotic on EF..
There’s a video on YouTube where it’s doing ~240deg/s, averaged over 720deg, with roll-acceleration and deceleration at either end. Not seen many fighters beat that in practice. I guess the peak rate in that would come out nearer 270-300deg/s.
lukosWho says that GaA TRMs will be used on the production variant of Captor-E?
It may not even be GaN either, there’s actually a new T/R option in town – SiC.
lukosThe whole post is complete nonsense.. EF’s AESA could not have been in development earlier because the whole development of European AESA started together, with AMSAR active array antenna developed by European GTDAR consortium (Thales, BAe Systems and EADS). All parties based their further development on AMSAR technology. THESE are the facts which speak for themselves..
But Captor-E still hasn’t arrived therefore it’s been in development longer, hence why it’s due to be a more complete package, in terms of electronic attack, comms and long range NCTR. AMSAR was mostly BAE SYSTEMs and conformal arrays are being studied for the FOAS too, which took the shape of Taranis.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html
You indeed do.. An Olympic gold medal in denial.
You win a Guinness World Record for using the oldest possible sources of information available to cling to a lost point, with matters long since superceded.
Your material doesn’t say squat about “Mk1+” having a new back-end. “Mk2” is currently vaporware, just like PEA “RBE3”.
https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/WHR_1-15_Maximising_European_Combat_Air_Power.pdf
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.
Obviously these things were not possible with the M-Scan back-end/architecture, therefore there’s obviously been an upgrade.
Furthermore:
If the common political and media narrative is to be believed, the F-35
has already made all previous fighter aircraft designs obsolete and
will soon revolutionise Western air power. Its combination of stealth,
sensor-fusion-enabled situational awareness, open-software architecture
and electronic warfare capabilities promise capabilities which are, impossible to deliver on more traditional platforms such as the
Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen.
:D:cool:
lukosOf course…
But that pulled the trigger. You’ve just joined Lukos in my ignore list, troll.
Typical. Reasoned logic about why low level flight is dangerous and non-equivalent to stealth = troll.
lukosSo, to sum it up: lukos ang mig31, you both consider theoretical abilities of SAM systems as facts while downplaying Rafale’s real life facts as irrelevant. You take 25 years old “stats” but refuse to take into account everything that moved forward in the mean time
basically, as said by others… it is not ignorance, obviously you distort fact to serve you PoV on purpose
You think nothing else has moved on in the last 25 years. 25 years ago most SR SAM threats were IR and flares and IR jammers were relatively effective and radio-command SAMs coul be jammed. Now there are dual waveband IIR SR SAMs and laser command SAMs, which are virtually immune to all known ECM. So low level flight has got more dangerous, not less.
lukosWhy dont 5th gen planes have these issues and can fire weapons at max range. And best air speed? The top 5 air forces of the world, must have it all wrong. Since this is the case B-1Bs And A-10s could strike bejing or the straight of Formosa easily. Why don’t 5th gen fighters receive a mission kill while maneuvering and dodging sams.
God bless your intelligence. You have shown the top 5 airforces on earth the way.
It’s because those 5 airforces didn’t realise that they wasted their money and could have achieved the stealth affect simply by flying an A-7 at 200ft above enemy territory, where surprise and luck would always be on their side.
lukosAs stated by most people.
lukosI think it’s too early to say. In th UK there is a Strategic Defence review in the next few months which is to set out the planning for the next 5 years. This follows on from the one in 2010.
How the RAF upgrades its kit will be dictated by this and to look for details at the moment is premature. You could take a look at the document a few pages earlier for the best assessment of UK plans (but there is no reference to Captor C or D because that is not an accurate term).
Here it is https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/WHR_1-15_Maximising_European_Combat_Air_Power.pdf
The proposed CAPTOR-E radar which is planned for operational service by 2022 in the RAF and other partner nations slightly later does include greatly enhanced NCTR capabilities as a priority.18 Until then, changes in radar software and waveforms, coupled with new operational tactics, could partially alleviate the problem for aircraft equipped with CAPTOR-M aircraft by altering the radar resource allocation of individual aircraft in a flight to have a better chance of jet-engine modulation identification. This would come at the cost of temporarily diminished wide-area scanning and multiple target tracking.19
[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
“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.”
That date’s wrt to long-range NCTR (Non-Cooperative Threat Recognition), which is yet another expanded capability aimed at distinguishing aircraft with no IFF tone or aircraft with VLO characteristics. The capability is very advanced because it required the radar to determine the shape of the aircraft as well as merely detecting and and tracking it, which includes filtering out stores. Also mentions changes in waveforms and detection of jet engine modulation. Clearly this is a step above normal AESA, even ones with EA.
lukosThe French did what was suitable for them developing an AESA from a PESA and get the radar operational. It wasn’t rushed into service considering that flight trials of the AESA antenna began im late 2002. It’s perfectly viable as the RBE2AA is in service for some two years and to believe that’s it for the rest of the aircaft’s service life is at best ognorant. RBE2AA will be further developed, in which way remains to be seen, however there is often more going on behind the scenes than is apparent from public sources. I know it’s hard to understand and accept for enthusiastic peiple, but that’s the way it is. The French did a lot of things right and better than the the Durofighter partners, that’s the result of a single nation pushing a national program vs 4 nations trying to reach agreements on a four national base.
One shouldn’t talk up or down something for the sake of it being “mine or theirs”. That’s fanboyish at best and doesn’t shed a good light on yourself. Try to be a bit more open minded and fair, irrespective of how others may encounter you, you can’t complain if you aren’t any better.
Just my 2 ct
2002? Eurofighter AESA has been in development for even longer. Given the amount of time in development, I think it’s reasonable to expect that it will be better when it comes out but sure Euro numpties slow things down. The facts speak for themselves, the breadth of capabilities planned for the Mk2 far outweigh anything mooted for the RBE2-AA, apart from maybe the conformal array, which is a 2030 proposal, at best, since the studies alone are projected to take 10 years and £1bn, according to a Rafale blogspot.
lukosWikipedia or not, as long as it shatters your claims to dust it’s good enough.. And boy it does.. How many siources have already debunked the nonsense you’re spouting? Seven? :angel:
That article in wikipedia dates back to the middle of last decade, it’s therefore defunct. My article is <2 years old by comparison and is an insider blogspot…. vs wikipedia from last decade. Therefore I think I clearly win.
In the meantime, Captor-E, too, came out with an old back-end and no electronic attack..
Oh wait… It has not yet…
And when it does it won’t, in accordance with up-to-date material.
lukosThe key is that very low level typically reduces exposure time to a few seconds.
Hah, more like a dozen seconds. Kill time is reduced to a few seconds though and ECM/RWR rendered virtually useless.
lukosApplying irrelevant data set , manipulating them to reach wrong conclusion ascertaining them fact, as witnessed on other occasions , do not deny common sense as unfounded nor refute any arguments. How many cruise missiles aimed toward predictable big cities and targets failed to networked manpads units already or intercepted fast flying jet passing by ?. That is like attempting to demonstrate max range of MICA < than 50 km on the basis of VL MICA range, irrelevant and obviously biased .
The MANPADS in and SR SAMs in Desert Storm were not even good but they still proved dangerous. Even against less sophisticated enemies flying low is dangerous, you do the maths. Range of MICA is 50km or less.
Irrelevant basis . The context, where any non-LO could operate at altitude, with massive support from other assets in total air superiority environment . Which is what they did finally once realized the threats had been greatly overestimated and that guided weapons granted good precision at altitude. So post mortem analysis essentially tell that VLO or not performing at altitude ,where there was little threats was safer and more effective with guided weapons, compared to low level bombing on top of target. Yet again it is not low bombing / strafing we are talking about, but penetration.
Call it what you like, but any flying at low altitude is more dangerous in a war zone, or otherwise. VLO is just a better way of remaining unseen at altitude.
lukos“If you go low… they will do this”
“If you go hi… they will do that”Please could someone tell me. Do we have here among the participants someone having experience in air strikes, I mean REAL one like being staff planning missions, or being aircrew… ? Or maybe being aero engineer ?…
because , i’m amazed how much you guys know things. You could plan the next airwar.AND WHAT DOES ALL THAT HAVE TO DO WITH RAFALE NEWS ??
We have plenty of stats to prove that flying low is more dangerous.
Sign In
