Captor-M or Captor-D

[F-2]

Hello! I was wondering what version of Captor we are to get. Is it the initial Captor or the upgraded-D version with the power PC processors. I think the biggest difference in in the Air to Ground preformance so not to relevant for early access but worth knowing down the line.

[Spectre11]

Captor-M is a generic term, where M denotes M-Scan. No one is using the terms Captor-C or D anymore. The former is T1, the later is T2 onwards.

[Southernbear]

From what I remember Gero saying, we'll start with Captor-M and then once the Germans get their first Captor-E systems in 2023-24 they'll try to add that into the plane. 

[F-2]

44 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

From what I remember Gero saying, we'll start with Captor-M and then once the Germans get their first Captor-E systems in 2023-24 they'll try to add that into the plane. 

Interesting, I guess captor-E isn’t as secret as I would have though.

[Mirage-4000]

12 hours ago, Southernbear said:

From what I remember Gero saying, we'll start with Captor-M and then once the Germans get their first Captor-E systems in 2023-24 they'll try to add that into the plane. 

 

Do you recall where and when he stated that? because I'm wondering if I didn't listen very carefully when he said this.

[Lurker]

Aren't the new Captor radars AESA? Don't get me wrong I'd love to see an AESA radar in the sim, but somehow I doubt that the devs will get clearance to model one even if they do get the relevant information on it's design/operation. 

[Spurts]

6 hours ago, Lurker said:

Aren't the new Captor radars AESA? Don't get me wrong I'd love to see an AESA radar in the sim, but somehow I doubt that the devs will get clearance to model one even if they do get the relevant information on it's design/operation. 

No, only the Captor-E is AESA

[Spectre11]

Manage your expectations gentlemen. The E-Scan comes with capability standards that have yet to be introduced operationally and which involve more than the AESA radar itself. It's a bit of a stretch to believe that you'll see the Radar in DCS any time soon, if ever.

[Southernbear]

On 9/6/2021 at 2:54 AM, Mirage-4000 said:

 

Do you recall where and when he stated that? because I'm wondering if I didn't listen very carefully when he said this.

Gero has stated a few times that whatever becomes standard on the Typhoon in German service will be added in some way as long as they can get the licencing ect...things like PIRATE are already confirmed and he stated for an example that if Airbus lets them put the EJ200 TVR engines in them or the radar they will get for example they will update the module to reflect this.

 

 Unfortunately you have to dig through the GR interview with him if you want to hear him speak but some interviews in German have also suggested the same "If it gets put into Service EF2000s we will attempt to update/add it to the DCS version"

[Lurker]

This is an old interview, from way back before the merger with Heatblur so I would take anything said there as very "everything is subject to change". Don't expect anything other than what is officially announced and you won't ever be disappointed.  

[Southernbear]

Gero has stated this multiple times, his main goal is to bring the most up to date version of the EF2000 he possibly can while the parts themselves may change, the merger with Heatblur is purely a technical partnership. Make no mistake that TrueGrit is still steering the ship with this one. 

[Spectre11]

As said, manage your expectations. Gero also made it clear that everything depends on the license holder, accessability and availability of data etc. We'll likely get a P1E like Typhoon with Meteor and maybe some selected elements from the newer P2E/P3E standards and possibly also elements from the older SRP2/4/5 standards whatever is available for different aspects of the aircraft and its systems.  

[Etirion]

Saying that it'd be cool to get it if they can and "it will be developed" are 2 very different things

[whiteladder]

Italy have just confirmed they will be going with ECRS mk2  the same as the RAF which is interesting with its wide band electronic attack functions

 

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/dsei-2021-italy-joins-eurofighter-radar-2-programme

[F-2]

I kinda realized AESA has never been declined. I wonder if it’s possible. Mk 0 and 1 use the captor d back end. I was surprised by the amount of info that exists in the public domain. I am curious what someone with industry contacts can get. I don’t think it’s likely, but I wonder if it’s really all that unlikely either.

[Spectre11]

Back end is a relative term here. Processor and receiver of the Mk0 are backwards compatible, but the software is different. So you can exchange these hardware components, but you must load a different software. The rest of the AESA is completely different and there is a bit more about it than just the radar itself. Overall weapon system integration is not exactly the same.

[Zahnatom]

2 hours ago, F-2 said:

I kinda realized AESA has never been declined. I wonder if it’s possible. Mk 0 and 1 use the captor d back end. I was surprised by the amount of info that exists in the public domain. I am curious what someone with industry contacts can get. I don’t think it’s likely, but I wonder if it’s really all that unlikely either.

well tbf, the Captor-E is a very new device which very little to nothing is known about(you'll find the most vague info somewhere but i doubt that heatblur wants to ruin its reputation like that). and frankly, the Captor-M is powerful enough.

iirc AESA radars aren't even implemented at all(unless the F-15E comes with one but it also had a mechanical radar first so i doubt it)

Edited October 9, 2022 by Zahnatom

[Harlikwin]

On 10/9/2022 at 3:18 PM, Zahnatom said:

well tbf, the Captor-E is a very new device which very little to nothing is known about(you'll find the most vague info somewhere but i doubt that heatblur wants to ruin its reputation like that). and frankly, the Captor-M is powerful enough.

iirc AESA radars aren't even implemented at all(unless the F-15E comes with one but it also had a mechanical radar first so i doubt it)

 

HB is pretty close to ruining its rep by even trying to do the EF. They are relying on the ignorance of the customer base IMO. Because the customer base doesn't know what it doesn't know. Even the basic versions of the EF had systems like MSI that aren't in DCS, sensors like IRST currently aren't credibly modeled in DCS in any reasonable form. And lol AESA radars? Nope, not gonna happen IMO.

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

HB is only helping, if they decided to work with, TrueGrit that probably means the latter have an idea to model things like IRST and MSI. Just because Hornet doesn't have it doesn't mean Eurofighter can't.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

HB is only helping, if they decided to work with, TrueGrit that probably means the latter have an idea to model things like IRST and MSI. Just because Hornet doesn't have it doesn't mean Eurofighter can't.

I mean I appreciate your optimism. But if ED can't decent documentation on literally 90's era MSI systems, I don't think the German MOD and certainly not the British MOD (Pirate), are absolutely not gonna be giving out details on current in-use systems. At best it will be entirely made up IMO. 

[Dragon1-1]

This doesn't mean anything. Different teams have different connections, TG is headed by an actual Eurofighter pilot, and that means he knows people, including ones working in German and UK governments. Perhaps he worked out a deal with someone on the inside. That's how things like that get done, most classified stuff isn't really that sensitive, you just need to convince someone with power to declassify it. The Chinese likely wouldn't talk to ED directly, either, but Deka, that's another matter. You wouldn't think the JF-17 would've been possible, but we have it, even though some systems aren't modeled. Often, it's a matter of knowing the right people. RAZBAM did the same with MiG-23, someone from them knew someone from a country that the MiG was exported to, and they arranged the necessary information to be transferred. If they had to go through the Russian officials, it likely would have never happened (not without a hefty bribe up front, at least).

We will have no way to verify that those systems are good, but HB likely will, and their record is excellent.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[Harlikwin]

42 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This doesn't mean anything. Different teams have different connections, TG is headed by an actual Eurofighter pilot, and that means he knows people, including ones working in German and UK governments. Perhaps he worked out a deal with someone on the inside. That's how things like that get done, most classified stuff isn't really that sensitive, you just need to convince someone with power to declassify it. The Chinese likely wouldn't talk to ED directly, either, but Deka, that's another matter. You wouldn't think the JF-17 would've been possible, but we have it, even though some systems aren't modeled. Often, it's a matter of knowing the right people. RAZBAM did the same with MiG-23, someone from them knew someone from a country that the MiG was exported to, and they arranged the necessary information to be transferred. If they had to go through the Russian officials, it likely would have never happened (not without a hefty bribe up front, at least).

We will have no way to verify that those systems are good, but HB likely will, and their record is excellent.

 

I mean maybe he has, still I doubt anything sensitive is gonna be modeled well if at all. I mean Pirate as an example is system with decades of development that went into it and only recently has it really reached somewhere near its actual initial promised potential from 30 years ago and it still has issues. And I very much doubt any of the more interesting things it can do and even more so its weak points will be modeled with any real fidelity. AFAIK, the whole deal with Deka is one of "just trust us", and I personally don't consider anything about the Jeff on a systems level to me modeled accurately, from the FM to the radar or other systems. They might be "close" but none of its accurate IMO. As for the 23 thing you have it backwards, the guy making the 23 had access to all the docs needed to do it. 

As for HB I'm far more interested how the F4 goes since that is pretty well documented publicly.

[bies]

It is whole lot better to model slightly earlier radar win reasonebly realistic way, that modern as totally unrealistic and made up, having nothing to do with real counterpart.

[F-2]

I only meant it if it was feasible due to their contacts with the manufacturer. It seemed unlikely but they wouldn’t rule it out. Obviously whatever can be done better.

[Ignition]

Making a 2018+ year aircraft is an error. Doesn't belong to the DCS modern jets timeframe also.

It's cool? yeah of course but it will be a FC3 simulation level with pushbuttons and I'm sure cool sounds.