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
1 Like
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
Does it? Can you show me where the Eurofighter does this;
Well said.
2 Likes
AIM-120D entered full production 2014, IOC in 2015
as you can see in source, the range chart circle was “roughly 2 times bigger than the amraam one”
AIM-120D estimates at 160km, so “roughly double” would be 300-340km (he did say roughly after all)
if you look at other BAE ECM products, they even openly state they use tech from F-22 and F-35 (sometimes they say “5th gen fighter” of which there are literally 2 BAE could take tech from), which i think further cements my case
1 Like
My bad, SIP1 update was provided in 2017.
I doubt the veracity of this claim. They already had dual pulse motors ready in the 90s, even produced and tested one for an AMRAAM form factor by 2010-2012 timeframe but never mentioned such an increase in performance.
1 Like
i mean motor technology has improved since then, and iirc they are putting a smaller warhead on it and using the relatively new mass-producability of some composites, as well as smaller but more capable electronics to give it that range boost
if you doubt electronics, compare the capability of the best GPU from 2009 (120D tested iirc), and the best of 2022 (260 test date iirc)
The electronics in the missile are upgraded constantly over time and during maintenance periods. The software likewise. The need for a faster processor may have been overcome and now size reduction is a priority - who knows… but they must handle the G-force. The latest technology generally does not do that very well. The latest chips use quite a lot of “dead silicon” already just to protect the smaller, more fragile layer of transistors. 75% or more of modern chips is just structural safety silicon.
What is not so fast in advancement is materials sciences for rocket propellant. They have not doubled the performance every two years since the 90s.
yeah, good point.
i mean i guess we will just have to wait to see if more numbers are released
1 Like
Looking further into it…it depends on the altitude. At sea level the F-15 has a VNE (rip speed) that is 15km per hour faster than the Eurofighter but doesn’t actually reach it. It’s top speed tops out around 1619KPH while the Eurofighter can reach its VNE of 1614KPH in around 45 seconds…and it would have a top speed of around 1730KPH if it was not for the VNE.
So in the barest technical sense…the F-15E is faster…by a whole 4KPH at sea level.
It is literally the best jet in the game right now. The fact that you completely fail to realize it and are coping that it isn’t OP enough for you boggles my mind.
This is one of my air to ground loadouts with the Eurofighter.
So you are saying that I should be able to take 10 air to air missiles…and also take 12 fire and forget air to ground missiles on the literal best platform in the game? So the solution to 1 OP CAS airplane (and it is only OP in tank battles…in EC the Su-34 is nothing special compare to anything that carries GBU-39s) is to take the best fighter in the game…and give it double the air to ground capability of the thing that you are complaining is OP?
Also…want to know what the flight performance gap between the Tornado and the Su-34 is? The sustained turn rate difference is about 2 degrees per second and the Tornado is actually faster than the Su-34. What is the flight performance difference between the Su-34 and the Typhoon? The STR of the Typhoon is 7 degrees per second better than the Su-34. The top speed of the Typhoon is much faster than the Su-34.
So basically…your idea is that we need to take the highest performing fighter that is currently in the game…and make it into the highest performing PVP CAS in the game as well where it sacrifices none of it’s PVP capability. Why?
Who said that Italy or Britain are banned from having good aircraft? Britain had a Gripen that it never purchased shoved into it’s tech tree in order to give it a good top tier aircraft…and it has been amongst the best top tier aircraft since it was added. It has been hands down one of the best PVP aircraft since it was added; so much so that 6/8 planes in the Air Superiority tournament finale were Gripens. Italy is much of the same story with the Hungarian sub-tree.
The only nation that you listed that has a valid complaint there is the German mains who’s previous top tier aircraft was the F-4F ICE. And if I recall correctly…this is a plane that you are currently complaining about because it doesn’t always fight in the same sim bracket as the F-15E and Eurofighter. And when German mains were asking for an F-16 to be shoehorned into their tech tree in the same way that the Gripen was shoehorned into the British tech tree…or the F-16 was shoehorned into the Japanese tech tree…or the F-16 that was shoehorned into the French tech tree…you were opposed to that as well.
4 Likes
He probably will not respond but the answer is flat out no. The Eurofighter in game is able of attaining Angles of Attack that the real one cannot. Even the SAS Damping limit is wrong because it is set to 29 degrees AoA just like the Rafale when the real Eurofighter is documented to have an AoA limit of around 24 degrees. There is a reason that they made the AMK in order to increase it’s available AoA.
1 Like
The AMK is for when the Eurofighter it fully loaded and there is nothing saying 24 AoA
Dunno. Flight performance? Air to Air loadout? What is the significance?
You spawn a KH carrier plane. Its almost in strike range upon spawn. On some maps you can even shot right away. You switch on your pod. Lock’n’shot the ordnance on ground targets, turn around ‘forget’ about them, Do whatever you want. Usually you just land for another run. I’ve seen 4x multikills from players who do it like this.
You don’t need speed, you don’t need maneuverability. No air to air stuff. Newsflash…its all about the air to ground missile.
EF can’t do it. You have to fiddle around with laser pointers within SAM range, while also exposed to enemy fighter spawns.
Thats why a top tier jet without F&F is - in fact - not top tier in GRB.
1 Like
This isn’t even worth the time