i mean they were talking about the much better motor on AARGM-ER as an example of what could be happening with the Peregrine. and tri-mode seeker is found on 3 small weapons systems already, and those 2 arent brand new anymore, so they almost certainly have downsized the seeker compared to previous tri-mode weapons which are already very small.
inertia would be an issue, but with how much better the motor seems to be i think itll at least beat or match the AIM-120A
look at ASRAAM, it gets max 50km range while also being very light compared to an AIM-120, and it is a much older missile too
it could be used for better ranging data, similar to how Legion pods have datalink to get more precise range, having multiple IR sensors through the missiles could allow for much more efficient and accurate data on target, all without emitting radiation (or laser)
Their usefulness would largely depend on the field of view of and the range performance of the seeker. I have no idea what either are, but I can’t see it being anywhere near effective as a Legion pod. But still valid points.
It’s War Thunder forums… people find everything stirring lol
they are both multirole but the Typhoon was mainly intended as an air superiority fighter, the others roles are secondary… While the Rafale is fully omnirole at the cost of lower air performance
Typhoon was designed to replace Tornado F.3/ADV
In UK and Italian service.
The UKs prinicpal need will always be air defence the Typhoon had to climb fast, find its target and engage it.
It was also equiped with a Radar thay can detect ground targets and an IRST system.
Typhoon was also planned to be navalised this concept was never realised.
Yeah but at first the idea of brits and germans was an interceptor, they just made it multirole because an interceptor wasn’t enough… The french left the program for that precise reason, they wanted a fully omnirole carrier-capable aircraft while the others nations didn’t
If the RN had pursued the navlised Typhoon France may have stayed (although they are notoriously fickle)
Britain decided against new Catobar carriers and for the current QE class (which is ultimately a mistake)
yep, though France would have probably left anyway… but yeah about the brits I don’t think catapult-less carriers are a very good idea, stovl reduces combat range by a lot
First operational EFT’s didnt even have a gun for cqc engagements or for CAS, let alone the multirole capabilities. Even pilots mocked the EFT quite a lot before it recieved its 27Mm Mauser gun and even then it had jamming issues in real life.
Meanwhile Rafale was designed to be multirole from the start.
You know the EFT was designed to be multirole since the 90s and both planes didn’t have A2G when they entered service and both got targeting pod intergration around the same time
First operational EFT’s didnt even have a gun to begin with, its a famous event known by every single EFT pilot and caused immense amount of jokes in RAF.
Show we were it said that the first in service Eurofighters had no gun
You are obviously mixing this with how the RAF didn’t want to have a gun but found it would cost more to remove it so kept it. The first EFTs had a gun
In that case show us your proof that every single EFT was deployed with Gun from the start please.
Im waiting for documents cause according to RAF pilots first couple EFT’s didnt had gun and they immediately expressed their discomfort about this issue, only after that EFT’s deployed with gun and the ones without one recieved their Mauser 27Mm.
Yet again you seem to be confusing this with something else
The RAF planed to not have a gun but realised it would cost more to not have the gun so the didn’t remove the gun
This was done before any plane entered service and every EFT had a gun when it entered service
You are the one who is making a baseless claim about the gun and refusing to post anything to support your claim as we both know it is wrong but this isn’t a Eurofighter thread is it so i am leaving this here
