AIM-260 said to have double range of 120D, going off the low estimate for the 120D the 260 would have 320km range which is way more than meteors 200km
I’ve seen 515km range estimates for F-22 radar but i think the 465km one from radartutorial.eu is more reasonable so I’ll stick with that one
And what do you dislike specifically?.
Iam not saying the meteor is having a max range as I don’t know at the moment and don’t want to look it up as it is 3am lol
And about the radar not sure on the Captor-e
just quoted the requirements for the Captor-m so it is possible it has more range but who knows
Aim 260 is still in development not officaly in service.
And gajins dislikes new stuff like that with few informations.
Meteor at least has more stuff known about it
Shhhhh
That the flashlight fitted to the rafales :P
The fireball from the resulting explosion some 60km away may be brighter
Nah, would have gone on strike long before it made it to the target :P
Word has it there may be a secret blade feature to remove the head of the problem ;)
Cant remember, is that IR or mmW guided :P
Any kind you’d like, just remember to customize your size options too
It’s been said before, but you shouldn’t really talk about things breaking the laws of physics and then refuse to test said things in an non-scientific process.
What you showed was two different aircraft using two different/inconsistent control inputs doing different stall manoeuvres. The comparison should start with both aircraft in the exact same energy state and finish in the same way. The differential data you would’ve gained from such a comparison would’ve held weight to the point you are trying to make, as opposed to being worthless like it currently is.
So your conclusion is that both planes are aerodynamically different yet you want them to perform the same? Do you have any data to back up the fact that the EFT should be in a deep stall in the same conditions a Rafale would be fine in?
This is completely ignoring the fact that the instructor exists precisely to stop planes from departing flight… was the instructor disabled as best as you can manage in these tests?
I have always adhered to using the exact same standard for testing (full real) whenever I’ve made a report. I have not made one (yet).
Do show me where a delta wing with >40 degree leading edge sweep maintains in excess of 40 degrees AoA without total flow separation. Test was conducted in mouse aim, going to full real removes the artificial limit to the available pull… which would worsen it. So exactly how does testing them equally matter if it only further proves my point? What is the point of arguing this? None? That’s what I thought.
The comparison is irrelevant, it shows the Rafale in full real and with maximum stick pull cannot achieve > 40 degrees AoA without intentionally yawing into a stall. The Eurofighter can just chill at an AoA in excess of what would cause total pitch-out departure and flow separation without even using full real inputs. Totally absurd. A completely parallel static test isn’t necessary at all and this whole reply you’ve made is a bunch of pointless nonsense.
My point is that a delta wing should not go well beyond total flow separation and maintain that zone when it was known for having limited AoA due to deep stall and instability with a heavily restrictive FCS irl.
The instructor was fully disabled for the Rafale and it followed the laws of physics, stalling at ~40 AoA whereas the Rafale sat in excess of 40 degrees without any signs of stall.
Do you think the Eurofighter is accurately modeled in-game? Do you think it should be able to sustain Cobra levels of AoA?
I’m not making any claim as the performance of the planes, I am merely arguing how you’ve tried to demonstrate your point. I just know that after watching both videos, stupidly and biasedly titled as well, that a proper testing methodology wasn’t demonstrated even if it was used as you claim (though you did switch between mouse and full real in one video anyway.)
I don’t know enough about the aircraft nor have any documentation to back it up even if I did, not my point. You could go a long way with a lot of people on this forum if you put effort into not having such a condescending and/or argumentative tone in your comments
At the end of the day, all of this discussion is nothing more than opinion piece arguing unless you submit the appropriate bug reports. It’s like you’re trying to sway public opinion as if that would affect how a report gets considered.
in service 2025, already been tested on various aircraft so valid for addition
range stated to be at least 2x that of AIM-120D-3
Again, for what? The way I tested it put a TON of favor towards the Eurofighter. Gave it every benefit of the doubt and all the advantages possible to prevent it from being a UFO.
You’re right! I made a complete and totally biased comparison in favor of the Eurofighter and it still falls flat on it’s face. It’s a total UFO.
I don’t care what they think of my tone. If they can’t take a neutral look at their favorite plane and accept that it’s not worth the money spent on it, that’s simply not my problem.
The Eurofighter being a UFO is not an opinion.
Where
here, any 200km estimates are the bare minimum required range figure
as for amraam variant, AIM-120D well into production and service by 2019, most likely choice
another one (its what the other one is quoting but needs subscription)
The AIM-120D-3 is stated to have ~160km range, 40km more is not 200%.
AIM-120D entered production in 2017, AIM-120D-3 more recently.
Eurofighter contains the same rwr capability. Both were heavily influenced by bae
incorrect, AN/ALR-94 was developed by LM Sanders, the first one was delivered in 1999.
in 2000, BAE bought LM Sanders, and became the main manufacturer of AN/ALR-94 as a result. To become the manufacturer of ALR-94, they ofc got the manufacturing capabilities, and exact technical details on it as well as just how it works. If anything, the ALR-94 probably influenced the EFT DASS. The ALR-94 is still equal to if not better than the EFT one though, as it was made as an all-out, no expense spared sensor suite to beat anything China or Russia could make for years to come, while the EFT one, while undoubtedly excellent, was made on a much tighter budget
