TR Air-Force EF Typhoon

[Fuzuli NL]

 

[Sanchez]

There will be a full scale EF mockup at Saha Expo this year. Bare minimum tbh; let's see if it the presented loadout will be of Turkish buy or possible future Turkish loadout; or simply a regular sales demo.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2046861583586890011

 

[Afif]

China’s J-10CE jets defeat Eurofighters 9-0 in mock battles, CCTV confirms

While state broadcaster does not identify the drill, details appear to match a 2024 exercise in Qatar involving Pakistan.

share.google

@Sanchez according to Chinese state media, J10CE scored 9-0 against Qatari Typhoon in simulated air combat during Zilzal-II exercise in 2024. This was a rumour since last year among PAF 'insiders' at the other forum. Of course this don't mean much in terms of actual capability comparison as we don't know the ROE. Nevertheless interesting.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

I don’t buy that. Pakistan has excellent pilots who also fly asymmetrically and aggressively because India puts such pressure on their training that the pilots must meet a minimum standard of quality.

The same phenomenon exists between Turkey and Greece, which constantly conduct simulated BVR & WVR Dogfights.
No offense to the Qataris, but they’re fair-weather pilots, just like the Saudis. I’m not denying their skills as fighter pilots, but rather the experience and asymmetric thinking of a fighter pilot in combat pressure -> Learning by doing.

See the 1997 Red Flag exercises in the U.S.: A single turkish F-16 as Tango 1 (Never Dies) took out several US F-16s and F-15s in a simulated dogfight.

 

[Yasar_TR]

China’s J-10CE jets defeat Eurofighters 9-0 in mock battles, CCTV confirms

While state broadcaster does not identify the drill, details appear to match a 2024 exercise in Qatar involving Pakistan.

share.google

@Sanchez according to Chinese state media, J10CE scored 9-0 against Qatari Typhoon in simulated air combat during Zilzal-II exercise in 2024. This was a rumour since last year among PAF 'insiders' at the other forum. Of course this don't mean much in terms of actual capability comparison as we don't know the ROE. Nevertheless interesting.

Bro if you dig deep, it is a BS news piece. Totally made up out of thin air.

You need to look at the specifics of the two planes. Chinese plane which is a copy of Israeli Lavi, is greatly outclassed by the Typhoon in terms of raw power, agility, speed and MTOW. Radar wise , although not published, ECRSMk2 with approx 1600+T/R module hybrid Aesa radar on the Typhoon is going to see the J10C long before the Chinese plane can see it. Although classified, it is presumed it can detect a 1m2 target at a distance in excess of 240km. KLJ7A radar on the J10C has supposedly a detection range of 170-180km for the same 1m2 target. J10C has an approximate RCS of 1m2. Where as Typhoon has a RCS of 0.5m2.

 

[Sanchez]

China’s J-10CE jets defeat Eurofighters 9-0 in mock battles, CCTV confirms

While state broadcaster does not identify the drill, details appear to match a 2024 exercise in Qatar involving Pakistan.

share.google

@Sanchez according to Chinese state media, J10CE scored 9-0 against Qatari Typhoon in simulated air combat during Zilzal-II exercise in 2024. This was a rumour since last year among PAF 'insiders' at the other forum. Of course this don't mean much in terms of actual capability comparison as we don't know the ROE. Nevertheless interesting.

I don't doubt the Pakistani prowess, but we should remember that "simulated air combat" is not a 1 v 1 free for all. As in, just like land exercises, there are plans to be tried and tested; there are prior set agreements on the type of engagement and rule sets. Engagements are done in that very strict criteria, not like in DCS. I remember the 2010 Anatolian Eagle with Chinese J-11s vs F-4s. As claimed, F-4s won 8-0, because it was supposedly an air to ground engagement.

Most countries don't release "results" like this to the world; so we usually only get glimpses and bombastic headlines that don't mean much. Is the J-10C a very potent aircraft? As we've probably seen, very much so. Do I really buy the idea that it eclipses EF in such a way to claim it's simply superior? Not really.

Chinese plane which is a copy of Israeli Lavi

Meh; same way the Lavi is a copy of F-16 maybe. They built on it so much even going as back as J-10A. J-10C on the other hand is barely anything that's resembling the original now.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

I don't doubt the Pakistani prowess, but we should remember that "simulated air combat" is not a 1 v 1 free for all. As in, just like land exercises, there are plans to be tried and tested; there are prior set agreements on the type of engagement and rule sets. Engagements are done in that very strict criteria, not like in DCS. I remember the 2010 Anatolian Eagle with Chinese J-11s vs F-4s. As claimed, F-4s won 8-0, because it was supposedly an air to ground engagement.

View attachment 80727

Most countries don't release "results" like this to the world; so we usually only get glimpses and bombastic headlines that don't mean much. Is the J-10C a very potent aircraft? As we've probably seen, very much so. Do I really buy the idea that it eclipses EF in such a way to claim it's simply superior? Not really.


Meh; same way the Lavi is a copy of F-16 maybe. They built on it so much even going as back as J-10A. J-10C on the other hand is barely anything that's resembling the original now.

 

[dBSPL]

View attachment 80150

AESA Radar Systems — Technical Comparison

A side-by-side comparison of six contemporary AESA radar systems across key engineering parameters. This table focuses strictly on structural advantages and constraints derived from physics, material science, and platform geometry — not tactical doctrine or mission-specific judgment.

All range figures are OSINT community estimates assuming a ~3–5 m² RCS target unless otherwise noted. These are not manufacturer-confirmed values. Operational maturity status is noted for each system.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

1 — AN/APG-81
Platform: F-35A/B/C
Status: Operational (Full-rate production)
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: ~1,676
Est. Detection Range: ~165–185 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Large (stealth-optimized geometry)

▲ Structural Advantages

Highest module density in this comparison → superior signal processing headroom and simultaneous multi-mode operation
LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) waveforms → emissions are inherently harder for hostile ESM/RWR to classify and locate
Large nose volume permits effective thermal management and sustained high average power output
Low-RCS platform integration tactically extends the radar's effective engagement range (reduced counter-detection distance)

▼ Structural Constraints

GaAs T/R modules → lower peak power per element and reduced thermal efficiency compared to GaN
Fixed antenna array → no mechanical steering support; tracking is lost when the target exits the electronic scan cone
Closed software architecture → operator nation depends on OEM approval for weapon and sensor integration

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

2 — ECRS Mk2 (CAPTOR-E Phase 2)
Platform: Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4+
Status: Development / Flight testing (not yet IOC)
Semiconductor: GaN
T/R Modules: 1,000+
Est. Detection Range: ~220+ km (projected)
Field of Regard: ~200°
Antenna Type: Steerable (Swashplate mechanism)
Nose Aperture: Large

▲ Structural Advantages

GaN semiconductor → higher peak power per element, wider instantaneous bandwidth, superior thermal tolerance vs. GaAs
Swashplate mechanism provides ~200° combined mechanical + electronic scan coverage, approaching rear-hemisphere awareness
Large aperture + GaN = highest EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power) potential in this comparison
High power output provides the physical foundation for wide-area electronic attack (stand-in jamming)

▼ Structural Constraints

Swashplate adds mechanical complexity → additional maintenance burden and a potential single point of failure
High-power emissions increase the radar's own detectability by hostile passive sensors (ESM/ELINT) at extended ranges
Platform lacks low-observable (LO) design features → radar performance advantage is partially offset by platform RCS
Not yet at IOC → operational maturity and reliability remain unverified in service conditions

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3 — ECRS Mk0 (CAPTOR-E Phase 1)
Platform: Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3A (Qatar configuration)
Status: Operational (limited fleet)
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: 1,000+
Est. Detection Range: ~150–165 km
Field of Regard: ~180°+
Antenna Type: Repositioner (mechanical + electronic)
Nose Aperture: Large

▲ Structural Advantages

Repositioner antenna base → significantly wider scan coverage than fixed AESA arrays
Typhoon's large nose volume accommodates high module count and effective cooling
Serves as hardware/software stepping stone toward Mk2 (established upgrade path)

▼ Structural Constraints

GaAs-based → lower peak power per element and narrower bandwidth compared to Mk2's GaN modules
Lacks Mk2's advanced EW and multi-function modes → transitional-generation system
Platform lacks LO design features → same visibility disadvantage as Mk2

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

4 — RBE2 AESA + SPECTRA
Platform: Dassault Rafale F3R / F4
Status: Operational
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: ~800–900
Est. Detection Range: ~130–140 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Small (compact airframe)

▲ Structural Advantages

Hardware-level integration with SPECTRA EW suite → radar and EW operate as a unified sensor/effector system
High passive detection fidelity → target acquisition and missile cueing possible via SPECTRA alone (radar silent)
Optimized waveforms for low-RCS target detection (enhanced in F3R+ software updates)

▼ Structural Constraints

Small nose aperture → physically limited antenna area and module count
GaAs technology → per-element power and thermal efficiency lag behind GaN-based systems
Raw EIRP and detection range are physically disadvantaged vs. large-aperture platforms (Typhoon, F-35)
Closed French supply chain → operator nation software access is restricted

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

5 — APG-83 SABR
Platform: F-16V Viper
Status: Operational
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: ~1,000
Est. Detection Range: ~135 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Small (F-16 radome)

▲ Structural Advantages

Derived from APG-81 processor and software architecture → mature, combat-proven software ecosystem
Designed for minimum-modification retrofit into existing F-16 airframes → low integration cost and downtime
High-resolution SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) ground mapping capability

▼ Structural Constraints

F-16's narrow nose cone → antenna size and module count hit a physical ceiling
GaAs → lower peak power and thermal margin compared to GaN
F-16's limited electrical generation and cooling capacity impose an upper bound on radar performance
Closed software → weapon and sensor integration requires US government approval

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

6 — ASELSAN MURAD
Platform: F-16 Özgür / KAAN (scaled variant)
Status: Integration & testing (not yet IOC)
Semiconductor: GaN
T/R Modules: 1,000+
Est. Detection Range: ~110–135 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Small (F-16) / Large (KAAN)

▲ Structural Advantages

GaN semiconductor in an F-16-class radar is uncommon → higher peak power per element and thermal tolerance vs. GaAs peers
Open/national software architecture → operator nation independently manages weapon and sensor integration
Native data-link integration with domestic munitions (GÖKHAN, GÖKTUĞ)
Scalability path to KAAN platform → nose aperture constraint is removed, module count can increase

▼ Structural Constraints

On F-16, constrained by narrow nose cone, limited power generation and cooling → GaN's theoretical advantages cannot be fully exploited
Operational maturity not yet verified → field performance depends on ongoing test data
Domestic supply chain depth → risk of external dependency on critical sub-components (no public clarity yet)
Range band trails ECRS Mk2 despite sharing GaN technology → a direct consequence of the aperture size difference

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Quick-Reference Matrix


	
	



	
	

		
System          | Semicon. | Modules | Range (est.)  | FoR   | Antenna     | Status
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
AN/APG-81       | GaAs     | ~1,676  | 165–185 km    | ~120° | Fixed       | Operational
ECRS Mk2        | GaN      | 1,000+  | ~220+ km      | ~200° | Swashplate  | Dev / Test
ECRS Mk0        | GaAs     | 1,000+  | 150–165 km    | ~180° | Repositioner| Operational (ltd.)
RBE2 + SPECTRA  | GaAs     | ~800    | 130–140 km    | ~120° | Fixed       | Operational
APG-83 SABR     | GaAs     | ~1,000  | ~135 km       | ~120° | Fixed       | Operational
ASELSAN MURAD   | GaN      | 1,000+  | 110–135 km    | ~120° | Fixed       | Test / Integ.
	

Methodology note: "Structural Advantage / Constraint" entries reflect the unavoidable physical consequences of design choices — semiconductor material properties, aperture geometry, antenna mechanics, and platform power budgets. They do not constitute tactical or doctrinal judgment.

All detection ranges are community OSINT estimates for a ~3–5 m² RCS target and should not be treated as authoritative. Systems marked as non-operational carry projected values that remain unverified.

The comparison above presents fixed engineering parameters. What follows is interpretive commentary on how these parameters interact with operational realities.

1. Maturity asymmetry. Of the six systems listed, three are fielded and combat-proven (APG-81, RBE2, APG-83), one is operational in limited numbers (ECRS Mk0), and two remain in development (ECRS Mk2, MURAD). On paper, the GaN-based systems lead in raw power metrics, but a radar that is not yet on the aircraft is operationally irrelevant. Any comparison must account for when these systems reach IOC, not just what they promise.

2. Aperture is destiny. The single most persistent variable in this comparison is nose aperture size. GaN gives MURAD a per-element power advantage over APG-83, but both are imprisoned by the F-16 radome. The same GaN technology in the Typhoon's larger nose yields dramatically different range figures. This is not a quality gap, it is geometry. A MURAD variant scaled for KAAN's aperture would be a fundamentally different proposition, but that system does not disclosed yet, or the theoretical parameters have not yet been precisely explained

3. Closed vs. sovereign architectures. Three of these radars (APG-81, APG-83, RBE2) operate under closed software ecosystems where weapon integration, waveform libraries, and update cycles require OEM-nation approval. MURAD and ECRS Mk2 offer varying degrees of operator-nation software control for TAF. In peacetime this distinction is administrative. In a crisis requiring rapid adaptation, new threat libraries, new munition integration, modified EW modes... It becomes a structural advantage or bottleneck.

4. No universal winner. A low-observable platform with LPI waveforms (APG-81) and a high-power GaN array with 200° coverage (ECRS Mk2) are not competing answers to the same question; they are answers to different questions. The operational value of each system is inseparable from the platform it rides, the threat environment it faces, and the kill chain it feeds. In compressed theatres with short BVR windows, the margins between these systems narrow considerably; in deep-strike or standoff scenarios, they diverge.

 

[Afif]

4. No universal winner. A low-observable platform with LPI waveforms (APG-81) and a high-power GaN array with 200° coverage (ECRS Mk2) are not competing answers to the same question; they are answers to different questions. The operational value of each system is inseparable from the platform it rides, the threat environment it faces, and the kill chain it feeds. In compressed theatres with short BVR windows, the margins between these systems narrow considerably; in deep-strike or standoff scenarios, they diverge.

To me it does not make much sense to compared APG-81 with ECRS MK2. One is fielded in thousand of aircrafts while the other one still in testing.

In fact, it is more accurate and fair to compare APG-85 with ECRS MK2. Even though, APG-85 is delayed by two years, (originally planned to be fielded in 2025 with lot 17) it is still going to be delivered and fieled earlier than ECRS MK2 in 2027 with lot 20 airframes. On the other hand, serially produced ECRS MK2 is going to be integrated with RAF Typhoon T3 in 2028.

It is said, APG-85 will need 82KW in total. Obviously it will retain LPI characteristics of APG-81 but can also act as highly capable jammer.

 

[Yasar_TR]

AESA Radar Systems — Technical Comparison

A side-by-side comparison of six contemporary AESA radar systems across key engineering parameters. This table focuses strictly on structural advantages and constraints derived from physics, material science, and platform geometry — not tactical doctrine or mission-specific judgment.

All range figures are OSINT community estimates assuming a ~3–5 m² RCS target unless otherwise noted. These are not manufacturer-confirmed values. Operational maturity status is noted for each system.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

1 — AN/APG-81
Platform: F-35A/B/C
Status: Operational (Full-rate production)
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: ~1,676
Est. Detection Range: ~165–185 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Large (stealth-optimized geometry)

▲ Structural Advantages

Highest module density in this comparison → superior signal processing headroom and simultaneous multi-mode operation
LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) waveforms → emissions are inherently harder for hostile ESM/RWR to classify and locate
Large nose volume permits effective thermal management and sustained high average power output
Low-RCS platform integration tactically extends the radar's effective engagement range (reduced counter-detection distance)

▼ Structural Constraints

GaAs T/R modules → lower peak power per element and reduced thermal efficiency compared to GaN
Fixed antenna array → no mechanical steering support; tracking is lost when the target exits the electronic scan cone
Closed software architecture → operator nation depends on OEM approval for weapon and sensor integration

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

2 — ECRS Mk2 (CAPTOR-E Phase 2)
Platform: Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4+
Status: Development / Flight testing (not yet IOC)
Semiconductor: GaN
T/R Modules: 1,000+
Est. Detection Range: ~220+ km (projected)
Field of Regard: ~200°
Antenna Type: Steerable (Swashplate mechanism)
Nose Aperture: Large

▲ Structural Advantages

GaN semiconductor → higher peak power per element, wider instantaneous bandwidth, superior thermal tolerance vs. GaAs
Swashplate mechanism provides ~200° combined mechanical + electronic scan coverage, approaching rear-hemisphere awareness
Large aperture + GaN = highest EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power) potential in this comparison
High power output provides the physical foundation for wide-area electronic attack (stand-in jamming)

▼ Structural Constraints

Swashplate adds mechanical complexity → additional maintenance burden and a potential single point of failure
High-power emissions increase the radar's own detectability by hostile passive sensors (ESM/ELINT) at extended ranges
Platform lacks low-observable (LO) design features → radar performance advantage is partially offset by platform RCS
Not yet at IOC → operational maturity and reliability remain unverified in service conditions

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3 — ECRS Mk0 (CAPTOR-E Phase 1)
Platform: Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3A (Qatar configuration)
Status: Operational (limited fleet)
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: 1,000+
Est. Detection Range: ~150–165 km
Field of Regard: ~180°+
Antenna Type: Repositioner (mechanical + electronic)
Nose Aperture: Large

▲ Structural Advantages

Repositioner antenna base → significantly wider scan coverage than fixed AESA arrays
Typhoon's large nose volume accommodates high module count and effective cooling
Serves as hardware/software stepping stone toward Mk2 (established upgrade path)

▼ Structural Constraints

GaAs-based → lower peak power per element and narrower bandwidth compared to Mk2's GaN modules
Lacks Mk2's advanced EW and multi-function modes → transitional-generation system
Platform lacks LO design features → same visibility disadvantage as Mk2

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

4 — RBE2 AESA + SPECTRA
Platform: Dassault Rafale F3R / F4
Status: Operational
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: ~800–900
Est. Detection Range: ~130–140 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Small (compact airframe)

▲ Structural Advantages

Hardware-level integration with SPECTRA EW suite → radar and EW operate as a unified sensor/effector system
High passive detection fidelity → target acquisition and missile cueing possible via SPECTRA alone (radar silent)
Optimized waveforms for low-RCS target detection (enhanced in F3R+ software updates)

▼ Structural Constraints

Small nose aperture → physically limited antenna area and module count
GaAs technology → per-element power and thermal efficiency lag behind GaN-based systems
Raw EIRP and detection range are physically disadvantaged vs. large-aperture platforms (Typhoon, F-35)
Closed French supply chain → operator nation software access is restricted

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

5 — APG-83 SABR
Platform: F-16V Viper
Status: Operational
Semiconductor: GaAs
T/R Modules: ~1,000
Est. Detection Range: ~135 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Small (F-16 radome)

▲ Structural Advantages

Derived from APG-81 processor and software architecture → mature, combat-proven software ecosystem
Designed for minimum-modification retrofit into existing F-16 airframes → low integration cost and downtime
High-resolution SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) ground mapping capability

▼ Structural Constraints

F-16's narrow nose cone → antenna size and module count hit a physical ceiling
GaAs → lower peak power and thermal margin compared to GaN
F-16's limited electrical generation and cooling capacity impose an upper bound on radar performance
Closed software → weapon and sensor integration requires US government approval

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

6 — ASELSAN MURAD
Platform: F-16 Özgür / KAAN (scaled variant)
Status: Integration & testing (not yet IOC)
Semiconductor: GaN
T/R Modules: 1,000+
Est. Detection Range: ~110–135 km
Field of Regard: ~120°
Antenna Type: Fixed array
Nose Aperture: Small (F-16) / Large (KAAN)

▲ Structural Advantages

GaN semiconductor in an F-16-class radar is uncommon → higher peak power per element and thermal tolerance vs. GaAs peers
Open/national software architecture → operator nation independently manages weapon and sensor integration
Native data-link integration with domestic munitions (GÖKHAN, GÖKTUĞ)
Scalability path to KAAN platform → nose aperture constraint is removed, module count can increase

▼ Structural Constraints

On F-16, constrained by narrow nose cone, limited power generation and cooling → GaN's theoretical advantages cannot be fully exploited
Operational maturity not yet verified → field performance depends on ongoing test data
Domestic supply chain depth → risk of external dependency on critical sub-components (no public clarity yet)
Range band trails ECRS Mk2 despite sharing GaN technology → a direct consequence of the aperture size difference

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Quick-Reference Matrix


	
	



	
	

		
System          | Semicon. | Modules | Range (est.)  | FoR   | Antenna     | Status
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
AN/APG-81       | GaAs     | ~1,676  | 165–185 km    | ~120° | Fixed       | Operational
ECRS Mk2        | GaN      | 1,000+  | ~220+ km      | ~200° | Swashplate  | Dev / Test
ECRS Mk0        | GaAs     | 1,000+  | 150–165 km    | ~180° | Repositioner| Operational (ltd.)
RBE2 + SPECTRA  | GaAs     | ~800    | 130–140 km    | ~120° | Fixed       | Operational
APG-83 SABR     | GaAs     | ~1,000  | ~135 km       | ~120° | Fixed       | Operational
ASELSAN MURAD   | GaN      | 1,000+  | 110–135 km    | ~120° | Fixed       | Test / Integ.
	

Methodology note: "Structural Advantage / Constraint" entries reflect the unavoidable physical consequences of design choices — semiconductor material properties, aperture geometry, antenna mechanics, and platform power budgets. They do not constitute tactical or doctrinal judgment.

All detection ranges are community OSINT estimates for a ~3–5 m² RCS target and should not be treated as authoritative. Systems marked as non-operational carry projected values that remain unverified.

The comparison above presents fixed engineering parameters. What follows is interpretive commentary on how these parameters interact with operational realities.

1. Maturity asymmetry. Of the six systems listed, three are fielded and combat-proven (APG-81, RBE2, APG-83), one is operational in limited numbers (ECRS Mk0), and two remain in development (ECRS Mk2, MURAD). On paper, the GaN-based systems lead in raw power metrics, but a radar that is not yet on the aircraft is operationally irrelevant. Any comparison must account for when these systems reach IOC, not just what they promise.

2. Aperture is destiny. The single most persistent variable in this comparison is nose aperture size. GaN gives MURAD a per-element power advantage over APG-83, but both are imprisoned by the F-16 radome. The same GaN technology in the Typhoon's larger nose yields dramatically different range figures. This is not a quality gap, it is geometry. A MURAD variant scaled for KAAN's aperture would be a fundamentally different proposition, but that system does not disclosed yet, or the theoretical parameters have not yet been precisely explained

3. Closed vs. sovereign architectures. Three of these radars (APG-81, APG-83, RBE2) operate under closed software ecosystems where weapon integration, waveform libraries, and update cycles require OEM-nation approval. MURAD and ECRS Mk2 offer varying degrees of operator-nation software control for TAF. In peacetime this distinction is administrative. In a crisis requiring rapid adaptation, new threat libraries, new munition integration, modified EW modes... It becomes a structural advantage or bottleneck.

4. No universal winner. A low-observable platform with LPI waveforms (APG-81) and a high-power GaN array with 200° coverage (ECRS Mk2) are not competing answers to the same question; they are answers to different questions. The operational value of each system is inseparable from the platform it rides, the threat environment it faces, and the kill chain it feeds. In compressed theatres with short BVR windows, the margins between these systems narrow considerably; in deep-strike or standoff scenarios, they diverge.

According to the below article, the Hensoldt produced (ECRSMK1) E-Captor Aesa radar used on the Typhoon has 1626 T/R modules. (They have counted the modules from a HD picture). The radome of the Typhoon can accommodate even more. Unconfirmed information on various media say the ECRSMK0 had 1450-1500 T/R modules, and the new ECRSMK2 is supposed to have more T/R count than even the MK1.

Infortunately when it comes to such strategic equipment, there is a lot of secrecy that surrounds it. So we can only guesstimate.

E-Captor - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

If you click on the highlighted writing there is an informative tutorial on this radar.

Digital Beamforming - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

 

[Shtr]

First Typhoons were supposed to be delivered at the end of February. At least it was mentioned like this. Why is this process so slow?

 

[Pokemonte13]

First Typhoons were supposed to be delivered at the end of February. At least it was mentioned like this. Why is this process so slow?

Iran War have you heard about it????

 

[uçuyorum]

Iran War have you heard about it????

Moreso pilot training I imagine

 

[Sanchez]

There were some recent talks about Omanese EFs being almost ready to be delivered. About that..
"Trump says the US will "blow up" Oman if it doesn't behave."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2059699664304107603

 

[Shtr]

Iran War have you heard about it????

So what?

 

[mehmed beg]

So what?

Well, Oman and Qatar might need the planes to defend their countries???
Even when this story started, I was worried about the possibility that the planes from those countries won't arrive very soon

 

[Sanchez]

We are also one of those 10, apparently by the wording.

What a difference a year makes - after every eurofighter partner operator told me in 2025 that they had no plans to fit APKWS for counter-drone, BAESystemsAir tells JanesINTEL and others at Warton today that there is now strong interest from all 10 partner and export customers, following recent successful RoyalAirForce fielding. "It is a fantastic capability!"

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2067695095835746591

 

[Pokemonte13]

We are also one of those 10, apparently by the wording.

What a difference a year makes - after every eurofighter partner operator told me in 2025 that they had no plans to fit APKWS for counter-drone, BAESystemsAir tells JanesINTEL and others at Warton today that there is now strong interest from all 10 partner and export customers, following recent successful RoyalAirForce fielding. "It is a fantastic capability!"

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2067695095835746591

Nice to have but for us that would be money wasting if its intended use would be against Drones.

 

[Sanchez]

Nice to have but for us that would be money wasting if its intended use would be against Drones.

Well we currently we use F-16s with AIM-9s or even AIM-120s so..

 

[Pokemonte13]

Well we currently we use F-16s with AIM-9s or even AIM-120s so..

couldn't we integrate cirit on them with özgür