Eurofighter Typhoon - Updates and Discussions

Nah. There are significant gain advantages to having a larger antenna, even without a power advantage.
 
BMD said:
Nah. There are significant gain advantages to having a larger antenna, even without a power advantage.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are some disadvantages to not being at the top to extract heat from the antenna and to have a pilot who emits a frequency that is not stable enough. In addition, with its side antennas, the Rafale will have more T/R than the E-Captor.
 
The pilot isn't part of our radar system. It was considered bad practice to use their head for emitting any frequency, this is probably why you suffered difficulties with heat extraction.

The Rafale won't get side antennas anytime soon. Meanwhile the Captor-E has a 240deg FoR due to swashplate allowing it to focus full radar power across that range. You can't add side antennae T/Rs because they don't point in the same direction, they would be separate, small, short-range radars - only of use if an enemy has successfully sneaked up on you.
 
BMD said:
The pilot isn't part of our radar system. It was considered bad practice to use their head for emitting any frequency, this is probably why you suffered difficulties with heat extraction.

The Rafale won't get side antennas anytime soon :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:. Meanwhile the Captor-E has will have a 240deg FoR due to swashplate allowing it to focus full radar power across that range. You can't add side antennae T/Rs because they don't point in the same direction, they would be separate, small, short-range radars - only of use if an enemy has successfully sneaked up on you.
Click to expand...
As usual, you know better than us how we will use our systems
 
Last edited:
Picdelamirand-oil said:
As usual, you know better than us how we will use our systems
Click to expand...
Not at all, but using a pilot for radar emissions seems somewhat unorthodox.

And BTW Captor-E is now fully ready, it's just awaiting fitment to production aircraft. Saying it's not ready now is like going to a jeweller's and saying a watch isn't ready because it's not on someone's wrist yet.
 
BMD said:
Not at all, but using a pilot for radar emissions seems somewhat unorthodox.
Click to expand...
Pilots are components responsible for generating stable frequencies that are then amplified and modified to match the desired characteristics of the Radar. A company specialized in this type of components is Vectron
Precision Crystal Oscillators for Radar Applications - Vectron International Products

Vectron uses its precision design and manufacturing capabilities to be the world's leading supplier of crystal controlled oscillators, crystal filters and crystal units to those OEM's servicing the world wide military and space industries. Typical applications include communications, radar, intelligent munitions and missiles, avionics, satellite and space exploration and many others. In addition, Vectron is the world's leading supplier of precision and space grade frequency control products, with heritage on both military and space programs dating back to 1958. Vectron's HI–REL manufacturing facility in Mt. Holly Springs, PA supplies the worlds leading producers of commercial and military satellites through its experienced staff and world class manufacturing plant.
Click to expand...
For the RBE2 Thales produces its own pilots to make them more accurate.

And BTW Captor-E is now fully ready, it's just awaiting fitment to production aircraft. Saying it's not ready now is like going to a jeweller's and saying a watch isn't ready because it's not on someone's wrist yet.
Click to expand...
This proves that you do not know what it is like to integrate equipment that works on an aircraft. That probably explains why Typhoon time is twice the normal time.
 
Doesn't say anything about pilots. Must be a French thing.

It has already been integrated on the IPAs, and it has been manufactured. It's just waiting to go on the Kuwaiti fighters.
 
BMD said:
Doesn't say anything about pilots. Must be a French thing.

It has already been integrated on the IPAs, and it has been manufactured. It's just waiting to go on the Kuwaiti fighters.
Click to expand...
What has been integrated on IPAs is two prototypes of the E-Captor on IPA which are instrumented aircraft for testing. Now you have to put a serial Radar on a standard aircraft and tune it up until it works perfectly, including in terms of expected performance.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
What has been integrated on IPAs is two prototypes of the E-Captor on IPA which are instrumented aircraft for testing. Now you have to put a serial Radar on a standard aircraft and tune it up until it works perfectly, including in terms of expected performance.
Click to expand...
You must not do configuration control there in France. The IPA is at the exact same standard as the production aircraft, it is literally an Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA). The tested radar is also at exactly the same configuration standard as the production radars, i.e. the same. There wouldn't be a production contract if any uncertainty existed.
 
BMD said:
You must not do configuration control there in France. The IPA is at the exact same standard as the production aircraft, it is literally an Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA). The tested radar is also at exactly the same configuration standard as the production radars, i.e. the same. There wouldn't be a production contract if any uncertainty existed.
Click to expand...
It's not true because the approach to produce a single radar is not the same as that to produce serial radar. And the fact that your plane is instrumented make it different than a standard production aircraft.
 
That's not how we run configuration control here in the UK. And the term 'instrumented' only applies to the ability to add instruments for testing, it does not mean instruments are always in place. I.e. if they were testing Storm Shadow carriage they might add strain gauges to the wings, but they would not be there for radar testing. And if they were added to say the swashplate for one test, they would be removed for final testing. There is no way they would pass a contract for dozens of radars if there was any chance there might be a problem with them.

Plus, I would be hugely surprised if a strain gauge had any EMI affect on a radar. If it was that temperamental, it would have failed EMI immunity tests, and ECCM tests.

You're clutching at very pathetic straws here.
 
BMD said:
That's not how we run configuration control here in the UK. And the term 'instrumented' only applies to the ability to add instruments for testing, it does not mean instruments are always in place. I.e. if they were testing Storm Shadow carriage they might add strain gauges to the wings, but they would not be there for radar testing. And if they were added to say the swashplate for one test, they would be removed for final testing. There is no way they would pass a contract for dozens of radars if there was any chance there might be a problem with them.

Plus, I would be hugely surprised if a strain gauge had any EMI affect on a radar. If it was that temperamental, it would have failed EMI immunity tests, and ECCM tests.

You're clutching at very pathetic straws here.
Click to expand...
We will see the delay :)
 
Except there is no delay. If there was any truth to what you were saying, then what is your hope of ever having side arrays and GaN any time soon? They haven't even finished integration testing yet.
 
BMD said:
Except there is no delay. If there was any truth to what you were saying, then what is your hope of ever having side arrays and GaN any time soon? They haven't even finished integration testing yet.
Click to expand...

Even though we are entirely satisfied with the current RBE2 AESA radar, we are already working on the next generation scheduled to appear on new-build aircraft in 2025. “For the same volume, GaN technology will offer an expanded bandwidth, more radiated power and an even easier ability to switch from one mode to another, or from one functionality to another.

With the same antenna, we will be capable of generating combined, interleaved radar, jamming and electronic warfare modes as part of an electronic attack mission. “GaN emitters will not be restricted to the radar and they will also equip the Spectra suite. For example, for the antennas in the wing apexes, ahead of the canard foreplanes, we could obtain a very quick emission/reception cycle, either saving some volume or augmenting radiated power. On Tranche 5 Rafales, we will have at our disposal twice the amount of transmitted power for the radar and jamming antennas.

[....]

This is the reason why this GaN technological path is so important, especially for the development of additional emitting panels and apertures that will offer extended radar angular coverage. “It is not just an improvement; it is a real technological breakthrough in the field of detection. Jamming modes will not be left untouched and will push the Rafale’s electronic warfare capabilities to unprecedented levels thanks to the introduction of what we call ‘smart jamming’, with a wider band coverage and GaN emitters from 2025. These capabilities will be further expanded thanks to the adoption of MFAs [Multi-Function Arrays].
Click to expand...
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25484&sid=5fd71907ad137a02dcc17774fb7f7a09 page 9/24
And what was announced for 2025 is now announced for 2024 :)
 
Last edited:
We never know where the developments of French equipment stand because we don't communicate on it, so for AESA for example everyone thought we were behind the Typhoon when we were 10 years ahead.
For GaN conform antennas they have been developed since 2007.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Pilots are components responsible for generating stable frequencies that are then amplified and modified to match the desired characteristics of the Radar. A company specialized in this type of components is Vectron
Precision Crystal Oscillators for Radar Applications - Vectron International Products


For the RBE2 Thales produces its own pilots to make them more accurate.


This proves that you do not know what it is like to integrate equipment that works on an aircraft. That probably explains why Typhoon time is twice the normal time.
Click to expand...

@BMD is being his stupid self as usual. He thinks you are talking about a human pilot. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Pilot signal - Wikipedia
In telecommunications, a pilot signal is a signal, usually a single frequency, transmitted over a communications system for supervisory, control, equalization, continuity, synchronization, or reference purposes.

@Picdel You may not know this but when it comes to people from the UK, English is more important than IQ.
So when you said "a pilot who emits", to a Brit it automatically means a person because you used the word "who". The correct word for an object is "which", so your statement should have been "a pilot which emits". BMD decided to use zero IQ to reply to your posts by assuming you are talking about a human pilot.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
We never know where the developments of French equipment stand because we don't communicate on it, so for AESA for example everyone thought we were behind the Typhoon when we were 10 years ahead.
For GaN conform antennas they have been developed since 2007.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that France is stuck with small orders, or we would have seen faster adoption of new tech. I hope it's possible to introduce new tech much faster after India comes in.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil
randomradio said:
@BMD is being his stupid self as usual. He thinks you are talking about a human pilot. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Pilot signal - Wikipedia
In telecommunications, a pilot signal is a signal, usually a single frequency, transmitted over a communications system for supervisory, control, equalization, continuity, synchronization, or reference purposes.

@Picdel You may not know this but when it comes to people from the UK, English is more important than IQ.
So when you said "a pilot who emits", to a Brit it automatically means a person because you used the word "who". The correct word for an object is "which", so your statement should have been "a pilot which emits". BMD decided to use zero IQ to reply to your posts by assuming you are talking about a human pilot.
Click to expand...
It's normally called an exciter signal though. I was being facetious.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
We never know where the developments of French equipment stand because we don't communicate on it, so for AESA for example everyone thought we were behind the Typhoon when we were 10 years ahead.
For GaN conform antennas they have been developed since 2007.
Click to expand...
The funding was ahead, not the technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom