Those would be only of cosmetic use anyway. As one rarely operates the SHar at over 85% thrust, carrying 30 min of fuel internally will last you waaay longer, and not even in sim I’ve ever gone below 15 minutes when I landed again…
It’s just for immersion and you could make it easier land vertically because it’s quite finicky with a heavy aircraft with a high fuel load in Sim
2 Likes
I mean it’s the idea - you can run extended cap orbits with tanks. Although you’d probably punch them off when the shooting starts
Meanwhile, you can’t carry a Gun and a Ext. Fuel tank right now on the Phantom, which means you either limit yourself to 30 or so mins with no burner or go no gun
sigh
The lack of wing mounted fuel tanks for the Phantoms is just crazy, I have no idea why they chose inline tank. But yeah, would be nice for the Sea Harrier even if you ditched quite quickly like you always do with fuel tanks. Would be handy in the absence of fuel dump mechanics
They can be massively reused and most airframes clearly don’t carry anything else important (ECM pods)on their centerline station. Also there is a much larger number of sizes of wingtank(s) that are often airframe / time specific.
I’m mostly surprised that it’s taken so long for the F-14 to get their tanks considering they go on dedicated stations and they were promised for the patch after the functionality was added and still are somehow yet to turn up.
Fair enough, though having to choose between a tank and a gunpod for a gamemode like SB i imagine is very annoying. When there are examples of aircraft like the FGR2 with 2 wing tans.
1 Like
emphasis on the most
Off the top of my head the tanks were the exact same size, just one on each wing. that said the FG.1 didn’t carry a gunpod operationally that i know of, so it is technically speaking realistic but i really dont want it to become a missile sled with no gun at all, (edit: at least not in RN service anyway) got the sea vixen for that
In RAF service it did, and our FG.1 is representative of a RAF FG.1
correct, i should’ve made that clearer
also i’m curious, did the RAF still refer to them as FG.1s in service or did they get modified to the FGR.2 standard?
The later edition of the weapons manual still has the designation as FG.1 so probably.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Covers the commonality between them
I take it both radars were pretty much the same in capability, if they referred to them collectively?
That’s what the paragraph says yes haha.
2 Likes
Sir please don’t make me look too stupid, I fly into the floor for no reason as is xD
3 Likes
Oh yes, VIFFing can be awesome when used right.
Applied right, and even ruined the day of Mig29s in the Gr7 and a few Viggens in the Harrier Gr1
Some of the FRS.51s had a version of India’s “Tarang” RWR system. Some references for the FRS.51 call it “Roshni”, however there are several articles indicate that’s the name of the EW suite rather than the RWR in particular.
Elta ELL-8222 jamming pod can also be seen carried in the last image
2 Likes
So would it be better than the ARI18228 and (if so) by how much?
Sounds like it has the same frequency coverage but is able to identify different radars. Here’s the product page: https://bel.ntc-us.com/bel/product/radar-warning-receiver-tarang/
It also sounds like it can automatically activate the aircraft’s jammer and countermeasures dispensers: https://www.drdo.gov.in/tarang-radar-warning-receiver
1 Like