I have never claimed the RBE2-AA had changed back-end.
Pffft, sure you did, that’s what you now argued about forever and a day.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133321-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)&p=2220399#post2220399
Still doesn’t say a thing about Captor-E having any more capabilities than RBE2-AA. Both have their upgrade path defined and they are technologically on the same level.
It says it has RF cyberwarfare and both active and passive detection/tracking capabilities, which is more than can be said for RBE2-AA. Aside from that, it has 50% more modules, which itself is good for a 36% increase in detection and targeting range.
I read very good. And another dozen of people here read the same. The only fool reading something else is yourself.
Go figure.
And? How exactly is that related to our topic?
Your comment wasn’t exactly related either, just something that put you in bad company, e.g. Saddam Hussein.
Of course, they surely spend their time testing new hardware in the least challenging missions possible, just to please you.
Not every test pushes the absolute limit in terms of simulating the greatest imaginable enemy threat. Some training scenarios in the last decade have had fighters mimicking 3rd generation fighter enemies. So in that particular case, you get left with a situation where a mechanically scanned radar, a PESA, an AESA, or even an IRST system ticks the box.
Who told you that I was Rafale man?
It’s plain to see. The immediate belief in the Rafale’s whole electronic stealth BS over in the F-35 thread. I see people willing to believe any Rafale hocus-pocus claim ever made, like the recent BS about the AESA RBE2 having a >100% increase in range over the PESA, putting it on par with an APG-77 based on RBE2 PESA range claims. Yeah, that’s right, the RBE2-AA is apparently 8 times more efficient than an APG-77 relative to its size. Pffft.
Sign In
