As for the Captor all these performance statements are not verified and no concrete datas are available. It is a speculation exercise, that's all.
On the contrary, there's ample evidence to suggest that the Captor-M is far more powerful than the RDY2. I deliberately left out links with more details on the RDY2 as I have no wish to dig up details on systems which may both be inducted into the IAF, but the data speaks for itself. I would rate the CaptorM as probably the best air to air MSA to go into series production, even above the AWG-9, which is by now, functionally obsolete. The RDY2 while a good radar is comparable to the Zhuk-ME and Elta EL/M-2032. Both are multifunction radars but not as expressly designed for air superiority as the Captor-M was clearly focused on. As matter of fact, the Captor M is deemed sufficient for A2A requirements, only the export market is driving the development of an AESA. Compare & contrast to the RBE-2 which needs AESA not just for export but to properly support the Meteor.
When I said that I disagree there was no disrespect in my statement.
And care to point out where I said you were disrespectful? All I said was I am being objective, as I recognise both aircraft have a way to go, ie pluses and minuses. Eg you speak of OSF-IT, but tell me where is the thermal channel for OSF-IT? AFAIK, its yet to be developed. Similarly, the DDM NG on the Spectra is a launch warning system, but the aircraft as of yet does not have a full MAWS.http://rafale.freeforums.org/post951.html
Similarly, I have asked for evidence as to the A2G capabilities of the Typhoon. Is it able to handle the same handling & payload configurations a Rafale can, when in strike mode. Flightglobal carried an excellent article on the Rafales well integrated weapons system, showing its mature and can already handle strike missions well.
Also one point, you mix the number of target to be tracked versus the taget tracked in "locked" mod. The captor can't lock 20 targets at the same time. As far as I remember it is 6 the correct number.
Where did I mix the number? You seem to be a bit confused.
The Captor M can TWS at least 20 targets, the RDY2, 8. Those are facts, at least as per published literature. The Captor reference was given previously. Out of its TWS targets, the Captor M can attack 4-6 (the actual numbers are unknown), the RDY2 can engage 4.http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/def ... s.html?L=1
So care to tell me where I said the Captor can "lock 20 targets at the same time", I said it can TWS 20 targets. Ie track while scan for situational awareness.
Anyways, locking onto 20 targets is all fine and well, but for a mechanical radar, it will be hard pressed to actually guide more than 2 missiles to widely spaced portions of its envelope. If you actually see the more candid public brochures, they specify the multi target engagement for a limited scan volume (azimuth and elevation). The Captor-M claims superiority in this respect versus other MSAs, by having specially developed high speed motors for high speed scanning to overcome its limitations as a MSA to some extent. Don't know whether it actually manages to pull it off though. The RBE-2 may actually have an advantage here today, in that it is an ESA and can fire at targets within its electronic scanning limits as its beam repositions almost instantly. But when both have AESA, this advantage will disappear.
Also, the Captor-E is now stated to come with swashplate AESA, allowing for a wide field of view. It will have a significant advantage over the Rafale if so.
I remember that the rafale could track two more targets than the captor M which is normal as it has an ESA.
There is a huge debate over how many targets the RBE2 PESA can actually track. Per Dassault literature, it has a special situational awareness mode in which it "follows" 40 targets, out of which it tracks 8 for missile firing, and out of which it can engage 4, since the Rafale can support only 4 Mica MCG datalinks. Other literature notes the 40 as "tracking". So its up for debate. At any rate, the actual number of targets displayed on screen may be less with only the nearest or most threatening shown, to avoid cluttering the display & confusing the pilot (after sensor fusion of course). So this point is academic at best.