the Radar: PESA or AESA?

[San_A]

Can we expect an AESA radar on this version?

And what about the IRST?

Edited December 28, 2022 by San_A

[Cunning_Raven]

2 minutes ago, San_A said:

Can we expect an AESA radar on this version?

No, we are getting the Captor-M

[F-2]

We are getting a mechanical scan version. They didn’t totally rule out AESA but it’s extraordinarily unlikely. The Typhoon never had a PESA, you might be thinking of the Rafale.

[Spectre11]

12 hours ago, Zahnatom said:

Captor-M is an M-scan radar btw, not PESA or AESA.

and another sidenote(not necessarily related), the CAPTOR-D is the CAPTOR-M. the -D was renamed to -M

 

That's not really the case. Captor-M is a generic term for the mechanically scanned version and equally apploes to the Tranche 1 and 2 radar standards, aka Captor-C and D. The primary difference between these two radar standards was the processor  albeit other LRIs have been upgraded as well, also for Tranche 3. There is typically no discrimination between T2/3 radar standards as earlier hardware is brought up to the same standard. The same cannot be said for the T1 radar, albeit some T2 radar LRIs have been retro qualified to be used in conjunction with the old processor.

[Spectre11]

The term Captor-M was coined when the Captor-E AESA radar emerged to distinguish the meachanically scanning version from the electronic scanning which. That's done indiscreminately irrespective of whether we are talking about the Tranche 1 (Captor-C) and the Tranche 2 (Captor-D) radar standards. In all official documentation I have seen thus far, the terms Captor-C or -D aren't even used. It's always T1 or T2 radar.

[Mike_Romeo]

On 12/28/2022 at 11:09 PM, San_A said:

And what about the IRST?

We are getting a german Eurofighter first and the german ones dont have that.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Mike_Romeo

[San_A]

Thanks for all the replies, happy new year!

[F-2]

Captor M is based of the extremely well regarded Blue Vixen radar from the sea harrier which you can read about in this article if so inclined.
 

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ferranti-radars-blue-falcon-blue-hawk-blue-vixen.1224/post-10340

[Spurts]

That's a big ask of a small antenna.  Should be better than any mechscan smaller than the above, but those planes have massive size advantages which improve power and gain which is a 3 part improvement to the radar range equation.  Captor-M would have to rely solely on signals processing capability to catch up.

[F-2]

I think captor is more likely the best mechanical scan radar in its class. The Swiss evaluation implied a longer range the apg-73 and RBE2 but not overwhelmingly. I also have this antidote 

https://www.timesaerospace.aero/features/defence/aesa-does-itor-does-it

Quote

More recently, in November 2018, an experienced Luftwaffe Typhoon pilot told me that he hadn’t found himself “in one situation where I wanted or needed E-scan”. 
He highlighted the excellent performance and capability of the M-scan radar on the Eurofighter and stressed that he would rather have the EuroFirst passive infrared airborne track equipment infrared search-and-track (PIRATE IRST), which was absent on German Eurofighters, than a new radar. 
He would also rather augment the existing radar with a Litening laser designator pod (LDP) to give a passive long-range visual identification capability.
Contrast that with some UK Royal Air Force pilots with experience of operating over Syria viewing M-scan radar as being on the verge of complete obsolescence, since mechanically scanned radars exhibit an inherently greater vulnerability to jamming and suffer from an inability to fully exploit the performance and capabilities of new weapons, including the Meteor BVRAAM.
Whatever the arguments, there’s no doubt that the Middle East has embraced AESA technology.

I would expect apg-71 and possibly apg-70/63(v)1 could exploit meteor fully and might brute force through jamming.

 

blue vixen, captors forerunner was supposedly very good at maintaining locks and allegedly filled in coverage gaps for AWACS in the Yugoslav wars, so I think Captor is more the best in other ways then simply range. 

[Spurts]

8 minutes ago, F-2 said:

 The Swiss evaluation implied a longer range the apg-73 and RBE2 but not overwhelmingly.

blue vixen, captors forerunner was supposedly very good at maintaining locks and allegedly filled in coverage gaps for AWACS in the Yugoslav wars, so I think Captor is more the best in other ways then simply range. 

and there is a vast chasm of range between APG-73 and APG-71.  As to non-range factors, sure I 100% can buy it being the best Mechscan.  

[F-2]

 

[F-2]

Apparently scan speed is comparable to a PESA, 10 degrees in 30 milliseconds according to this old AWST. The radar also has interleaving in some capacity.
 

https://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/200910/20091012204005.doc

[F-2]

2 hours ago, Zahnatom said:

what are the angular limits of it btw

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/eurofighter-typhoon-avionics.19/

Quote

The array can be moved +-60° in azimuth and elevation. 

 

[Spectre11]

20 hours ago, F-2 said:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/eurofighter-typhoon-avionics.19/

 

You probably mean that the beam can be electronically steered by that amount...

[Spectre11]

46 minutes ago, Zahnatom said:

interesting. idk why but i was expecting it to be more tbh
 

With the WFoR repositioner it's 100°. 

[Spectre11]

6 hours ago, Zahnatom said:

the what?

Wide Field of R.....

isnt that the captor-e variant

 

Regard...

Yes that's for the Captor-E. If your question was related to the stndard Captor-M it's 70 in Az and 60 in El.

[F-2]

12 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

Regard...

Yes that's for the Captor-E. If your question was related to the stndard Captor-M it's 70 in Az and 60 in El.

You flew the Typhoon right? Is it true scan speed is very fast and some kinda interleaving of modes is possible?

[Spectre11]

On 4/4/2023 at 5:50 PM, F-2 said:

You flew the Typhoon right? Is it true scan speed is very fast and some kinda interleaving of modes is possible?

To my knowledge mode interleaving isn't possible. You can still select the AA Attack forrmat while the radar is in an A/S mode, but the ATCK format is not a plain radar format. The high scan rates enable Captor to utilise max. search volumes in TWS. Other M-Scans have typically constrained search volumes in TWS compared search modes like RWS or VS.

[F-2]

59 minutes ago, Spectre11 said:

To my knowledge mode interleaving isn't possible. You can still select the AA Attack forrmat while the radar is in an A/S mode, but the ATCK format is not a plain radar format. The high scan rates enable Captor to utilise max. search volumes in TWS. Other M-Scans have typically constrained search volumes in TWS compared search modes like RWS or VS.

Thank you!

[Beamscanner]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:24 PM, F-2 said:

Apparently scan speed is comparable to a PESA, 10 degrees in 30 milliseconds according to this old AWST. The radar also has interleaving in some capacity.

FYI, most mechanical radars can scan faster than they do during normal operation. However, scanning faster lowers your detection range by reducing your time on target (less pulses get integrated).

 

I highly doubt the Captor-M actually scans at 333 degrees per second during RWS / TWS. Doing so would cut its detection range nearly in half. 

 

The benefit of this high scan rate capability (and AESAs) is 

1. Less time lost in changing elevation bars and resetting of the raster scan

2. less time rotating the antenna face when in STT and during an aircraft roll

3. Track file revisits (main benefit of PESA and AESA). Which probably doesn't exist in the Captor-M in any mode except DTT. And this would only be during the motion between the targets. While on the targets (if performing a mini-raster) it would slow down again. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Beamscanner

[Blaze1]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:22 AM, Beamscanner said:

FYI, most mechanical radars can scan faster than they do during normal operation. However, scanning faster lowers your detection range by reducing your time on target (less pulses get integrated).

 

I highly doubt the Captor-M actually scans at 333 degrees per second during RWS / TWS. Doing so would cut its detection range nearly in half. 

 

The benefit of this high scan rate capability (and AESAs) is 

1. Less time lost in changing elevation bars and resetting of the raster scan

2. less time rotating the antenna face when in STT and during an aircraft roll

3. Track file revisits (main benefit of PESA and AESA). Which probably doesn't exist in the Captor-M in any mode except DTT. And this would only be during the motion between the targets. While on the targets (if performing a mini-raster) it would slow down again. 

 

Beamscanner, the high drive rate also allows for updating of multiple priority target tracks while in TWS and that includes out of volume target tracks.  The articles listed state that the antenna is electronically rotated.

[Temetre]

Am 9.4.2023 um 09:22 schrieb Beamscanner:

I highly doubt the Captor-M actually scans at 333 degrees per second during RWS / TWS. Doing so would cut its detection range nearly in half.

Im not an expert here, but would it allow you to scan a huge area at the reduced range?

After all even the F-14s and F-15s radar got huge ranges, 100 miles against hot fighters, and thats 80s radar. EF radar is a bit smaller, but much more modern. If you can get, idk, 75km range but scan a large area, that might be a useful mode.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Temetre

[MRTX]

Am 9.4.2023 um 09:22 schrieb Beamscanner:

3. Track file revisits (main benefit of PESA and AESA). Which probably doesn't exist in the Captor-M in any mode except DTT. And this would only be during the motion between the targets. While on the targets (if performing a mini-raster) it would slow down again. 

 

The Eurofighter was designed to be an air superiority fighter with its radar built in mind, so isn't the whole point of having the ability of such a high scanrate to enable dynamic dwell times on TWS targets by revisiting tracks, allowing for high target update rates at the maximum radar search volume. 

For example the radar would initially perform normal bar sweeps to scan the airspace in a rather classic fashion at its maximum search volume. After detecting a single or multiple targets and creating TWS track files, the radar is still able to perform normal bar sweeps at the maximum search volume in order not to compromise the detection of new targets. Between every other bar sweep the radar would then quickly revisit all existing radar tracks ensuring a high track rate no matter the radar search volume. On top of that this also allows the radar to prioritize TWS tracks by their RCS or the necessity of higher update rates for a missile track. 

This overall allows for extremely stable TWS tracks at full radar search volume (which currently no fighter in DCS features) at unpresidented ranges. The only real factor influencing TWS performance would be the number of simultaneous tracks. 

[Spectre11]

You still remain constraint by the mechanical gimbal compared to ESA. For best performance you still need to trade scan volume, but you at least have the choice and that's not true for any other MSA I'm aware of.