Yeah man, go on, argue with official informaton. It was planned to carry 4 RVV-AE, not 4 R-27.
2 Likes
The Yak141, Object 279, IS-6 (which actually didn’t work IRL), IS-7… The list is rather large. But here we are.
1 Like
Then will you approve a thread where this topic can be raised whilst still being on topic?
2 Likes
And that’s again pretty much the same as EAP. It was built, flown and had mockup armament mounted. Since when you cared if the weapons worked or not, as mock ups seem to be enough for other vehicles…?
“For the game model, we installed a radar that was planned and existed at the time, as well as the IRST, standard for Soviet fighters.”
So just install the planned equipment and weapons on the EAP aswell.
I don’t understand this random line you want to draw between yak141 and EAP.
Yak141 is perfectly ok, but EAP isn’t even consideration, because it’s “technology demostrator” and not just a failed prototype… Lmao.
Actually now i’m starting to think this will be another event vehicle behind a huge grindwall… That seems to be the place you put NATO prototypes anyway.
2 Likes
EAP, would be really fun, with limited A2A and no A2G power. Such a shame its not even being considered as far as I am aware
1 Like
There are no planned equipment and weapons for the EAP. This seems to be what people are misunderstanding.
The Yak-141 was a prototype aircraft for an intended production aircraft with documented weaponry plans.
The EAP however was a proof of concept demonstrator that was never intended itself to be operationally armed. There was no “production” EAP. It lead to the Eurofighter project and that had its own prototypes.
EAP has:
- No RWR
- No Countermeasures of any kind
- No functioning weaponry
- No possibility or plans that were ever made to fit them functionally.
It simply was to show that new technologies and ideas could be amalgamated into a singular test aircraft ahead of the joint European fighter program.
The manufactures own website makes this clear: https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/heritage/bae-eap
There are indeed images of a mock-up ASRAAM and AMRAAM mounted. But these are exactly just that. They are non-functional. The aircraft does not have the systems to use them. Some drawings also show Skyflash and AMRAAM again.
This aircraft was BAe’s proof of concept that the fundamental designs could work. From this, the Eurofighter project was started.
We are very much aware of peoples desires to see a new top jet in the British tree after the Tornado F.3. We have plans for the future to make that a reality, but based on all the current information the EAP is currently not planned by the devs to come in any form.
4 Likes
I hope those are really soon, because Tornado F3 is DOA in its current state and I dont want to be fighting 12/12.3s in 11.3s for another 6 months. I know its unlikely but I do think a partially added DA2 is what is going to be needed ASAP.
5 Likes
so leave the UK air tree to dry until a year or 2 from now when the typhoon can be added?
we need this deperately
EAP is not an option for us, forget it.
Early versions of Eurofighter Typhoons would be much better choice then EAP.
The American propaganda machine is hard at work.
Whilst the BAe website does state that it is a technology demonstrator this is based on the politics of its conception.
The Rafale A is labelled similarly for the reason of excluding the necessity of financial backing, future production and also to keep either project impartial in the overall European fighter project, this is why the countries of Italy and Germany did not invest in either prototype as it wouldn’t be impartial and to help with this they are referred to as technology demonstrators rather than their official classification which would be a pre-FSD prototype according to an external 3rd party not bound by this agreement.
Source RAND just slightly after the completion of the two aircraft, page labelled 10 in the link below.
One key difference is that the EAP carried these dummy weapons where the Rafale did not and simply tested the airframe, this shows intent of the EAP to carry armament as it specifically tested the aerodynamic performance of specified BAE products.
The aircrafts predecessor the P.110 intended for export to Saudi Arabia which this aircraft is directly developed from was slated to carry a Foxhunter radar from the Tornado. I have proof here as an MP the Hon. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton specifically asks about the P.110 and references Ferranti systems including a radar,
Link to parliamentary transcript: P110 Aircraft (Hansard, 1 March 1982)
Gaijin has given out a-historic flares to vehicles that need them and as Britain has no domestic options other than this one it is convenient that BAE bought a large stake in SAAB and purchased SAAB’s BOL countermeasure pods for the harrier GR.7, furthermore it is even more convenient that those same pods can be fitted to a standard ASRAAM/Sidewinder missile rail.
I do have more points i could make so i’d like to ask if we could have a dedicated thread for this aircraft, the interest is clearly there and it causes no harm to gaijin to at least entertain this proposal until grounds for its disqualification can be clearly outlined.
2 Likes
I would love a dedicated thread for this.
1 Like
They will find a way to butcher the eurofighter when it comes too, don’t you worry.
Just give up and play Russia is my recommendation.
Russian BIAS
South African aircraft subtree ? or just add Shar FA2 next year and put it in 12.0 to play with those supersonic?
1 Like
If its only 12.0 then we will be very happy. AMRAAM and 9M? I was thinking 12.3 at least, maybe even 12.7
And the worst part is Russia got a new Mig 29, the us got a new F16.
MY BROTHER IN CHRIST THEY JUST GOT AN F16 AND A MIG 29.
Meanwhile UK is stuck with a Tornado. A non competitive jet at that BR.
1 Like
Yeah, UK and Sweden I think are royally screwed this update,
1 Like
I don’t think Gaijin will do another BR decompression at this point.