No. Captor-E is largely based on Captor-D.. It isn’t a Captor-D with new antenna only because such transition is not possible – some mods to high power transmitter and processing unit are required in order to adapt them for an active phased array.

Not according to the information posted already. Both Mk1+ and Mk2 have a new architecture. It’s isn’t Captor-D with a new antenna because it’s not a tick in a box solution like the rushed RBE2-AA.

Different philosophy , different tactics , different planes and characteristics. That is why comparing A to B on fact sheet won’t bring much.

Very low fast flying ,hiding in the clutter with deceptive jamming , is another form for stealth. A Look down -shoot down capability, does not imply ability to detect and track a very low flying LO object within the clutter, not mentioning how challenging the environment is to both EM and IR seekers. Radar theoretical horizon, based on earth curvature with zero relief and no cluster nor EM interference ,is just that the maximal theoretical horizon. Add relief and EM reflection and clutter and the theoretical range deprecate fast.

Detecting and shooting down from above a fast low flying jet , is way much harder than one imagine, Kosovo experience , or even more recently in Lybia showed that even with total air superiority , AWACS and cover in the air, low flying planes evaded detection long enough , even with poor electronics.

There are of course draw backs , fuel consumption being one, exposure to hazard of low flying being another. Good mission planning is a must. Gulf war is rich of bad experiences in that domain, .Sending 2 successive waves on the same ingress route over an undetected enemy division. First wave caught division off guard and went unchallenged ,second wave was not so lucky. Or flying low ,but not low enough , like the initial tornados raids, popping up at worst possible spot to release their weapons . Some got cold feet after that !,but the blame is less on low flying than poor planning and over confidence .

I personally experienced regular pairs of fast low flying M2000 when in my summer house in a relatively flat country side. Well the expression they are gone before you hear them is pretty close to the feeling . With some getting used to, you can get a glimpse of them ,but honestly small weapons ,shoulder or short range SAM has null chances to engage, and I must have been on a hill 100 meters above the rest.

So it is risky business , as much or less I guess than flying at altitude in a VLO airframe in contested airspace . But that is my opinion.

On a side note, this obsession with an improbable extrapolation of the range for airborne launched MICA from VL MICA is getting really tiring. It was proven wrong ,and remain wrong even for low flying launch at +900 km/h ……compared to vertical launch at 0 km/h. It is borderline intellectually dishonest or worse.

Do you know low flying planes avoided detection, or was it just that nobody was around to shoot them down. Wasn’t aware of any Libyan low altitude ops when the allies were there.

How can it be less risky than flying at altitude in a VLO aircraft? The sheer number of things that can kill you at low altitude make it more dangerous. You also make it sound as if contested airspace is only contested at altitude. What’s to stop you meeting jets at low altitude, where even an attack jet like an Su-25 will have a decent chance of getting lucky with an AAM, along with the million other threats down there.

Range is vastly reduced at low altitude. An AIM-120C has a range of 5km in tail chase at low altitude, your chance of hitting anything at 40,000ft with a MICA from SL is zero. Wrt VL vs 900kph horizontal launch. One starts from rest but points the missile in the correct direction and the energy required to get from 0-900kph is minimal, relative to the energy required to get from 900-3000kph whilst climbing 40,000ft.

On the deceptive jamming issue. Completely irrelevant against IIR or laser-guided SAMs, as is RWR. Yet another reason why there’s no point in developing expensive EW suites and then putting an aircraft at an altitude where they’re useless. It’s like taking a sniper rifle into a phone booth fight. FWIW I also heard lately about a Russian MANPADS that is comms linked to a wide variety of platforms to give them a heads up when a sitting duck is about to arrive at low altitude. The mobility and quantity of threats also increases at low altitiude. It takes a fair while to set up an S-400 and they aren’t thousands of them, and missiles are limited in quantity per unit. At low altitude, smaller missiles are more plentiful and threats can move around rapidly in jeeps or small manoeuvrable platform. You could even theoretically have people firing Igla-Ss out of helicopters, or using helicopters to place them on the top of terrain. From a financial point of view, even forcing the enemy to shoot you down with a 48H6E2 is better than letting them do it with an Igla-S or a few 23mm rounds.

Are you aware that the original RBE2 was already an electronically scanned radar, because the FAF had already anticipated that electronically scanned radars were the way of the future? That it was a PESA was a transitory step to get ahead on the AESA transition because the cost/efficiency ratio of first gen AESA modules was considered too low.

It’s not like the RBE2 was a mechanical array in the first place.

Nic

No but it wasn’t an AESA in the first place either, hence why it’s limited in still having the PESA back end. The Captor-E is a ground-up AESA design built with fully matured technology.

Sometimes imperial units are better, sometimes metric. Landing with metric altitude feels worse to me.

on EF: it’s on the very top performance wise as an interceptor, and Captor E may well be the best radar to date,
it also has the sheer mass and power to be a heavy duty bomb truck,
but the customer/Germans expected to pay for upgrades and integration has other priorities, time’s up,
high operational cost also doesn’t help making it desirable or future proof.
Perhaps it is put best to use in an AF large enough to use two types, one dedicated fighter-interceptor,
and then UAV for ground targets

Where do people get these ‘high operational costs’ from? Most sources show them to be similar to the Rafale and cheaper than the Tornado. As regards progress, the UK has got tired of waiting for Germany and will go it alone. Note that the Tories have just been elected with a majority and no Lib Dems to hold them back.

I still think 2019 is more likely for the all-up version, given the amount of development already done and that fact that 4 years is still a pretty long time to get stuff done and the economic situation is improving.

Higher threat activity, heavily jammed environment, the need to kill a HVT that cannot wait threats to be treated with rain of AAM and ARM, among other..

That’s a stretching scenario but even them the target would have to be outside the range of naval cruise missiles. You’re also exposing yourself to massively more risk than a F-35 sneaking in between the reduced radar coverage zones.

Beam riding isn’t exactly the best guidance method against highly maneuverable targets, unlike proportional guidance.
Furthermore, and again, ground tracking systems are subject to aircraft countermeasure and environment (weather). Visible spectrum systems won’t see anything at night or in bad weather (i.e fog) and are still vulnerable against visible spectrum flares.

If the guidance method works, it works. A laser isn’t subject to countermeasures and no current fighter has the sort of countermeasure that would be effective against IIR missiles. Relying on weather for protection is risky and most modern optical systems also work in IIR, which isn’t easily fooled by flares.

Furthermore, a configuration on which a high point has unlimited visibility are somewhat unlikely to happen, and a reactive maneuver from the targeted aircraft could allow it to switch between valleys in a relatively short amount of time.

Unlikely? Yeah, until it happens. If you know you have areas covered by radar SAMs, then that a good cue as to where you’re going to put MANPADS and SR SAMs.

Modern SATCP system are very dangerous indeed, but not uber weapons. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-shoulder-mounted-sim-trains-pilots-to-evade-surfac-1702680164

Evading a fake missile doesn’t mean you can evade a real one. It also appears to be simulating older IR seeker variants.

45 kilometers.. that’s around 2 minutes for a fighter. That’s short, not mentioning such radar’s position would be well known pre-flight, or detected during flight at the worst case, updating SA immediatly and permitting the crew to rearrange their route.
Not mentioning either your calculation works on completely flat terrain, like, water. Unlikely to happen on a continental type environment.

Two minutes of risk. Now put the SAM radar on a hill or mountain, or use a higher mast.

Why would they shot them down ? It’s all about getting undetected here.. not taking stupid opportunity shots.
Also, while SL launched missile suffer from high drag at low altitude, it is the same with high altitude launched missile reaching higher density air layers when targeting a low altitude aircraft.

The missile coming down has the advantage of gravity and higher initial speed though.

Furthermore.. what do you call little speed ?
Again, typical speed for a low level run of 2000D or Rafale is between mach 0,9 and mach 1 on optimal cases (i.e egress without heavy weaponry)

But the missile has to turn upwards losing most of that energy.

.

Great news, because Mirage 2000D’s SERVAL/SPIRALE/CAMELEON systems and Rafale’s SPECTRA suite were designed with low level penetration flights in mind.

Yes but it’s completely useless at jamming the kind of SAM threats that one encounters at low altitude. It can detect the missiles after launch but that about it, excluding the use of flares against last gen IR SAMs. Factor in a modern short-range SAM and they’re both as good as dead and the likes of a 23-35mm AAA will down them in a hail of bullets with zero warning from out of nowhere.