Considering how the AN/AXX-1 TCS (F-14B) / ASX-1 TISEO (Kurnass 2000 (Still waiting for the F-4E to get it)) / NAVFLIR / DMT (AV-8BNA &(-B+) / Harrier GR.7) / AAR-45 LANA (A-7E &-7K, even though it’s actually a Navigation pod, and can only be slewed by said A2G radar tracks) have been implemented, don’t expect much in terms of added functionality or interactivity beyond an integrated targeting pod.
2 Likes
I play other nations than Germany, US/RU/CN are all also top tier. I dont really do convoy strikes with REDFOR seeing as they dont have anything that can efficiently and safely do those kinds of runs that I like using. Typhoon might be able to if it gets LGB’s, but its gonna take a while guiding each one in one at a time, probs not worth the time/effort. Im close to the Su-34 tho, should be able to effeciently kill convoys with that.
I guess the Typhoon will still manage to run 6 LGB’s + 6 AAM’s tho, so a bit more multirole on that end. Any idea what kind of dumb bomb load they can run?
I have doubts theyll even model PIRATE as a TGP, theyll porbs just copy paste over the Su-27 IRST code and call it a day…
IRST is modeled on the Mig-23MLD/Su-27, I dont see why it would be any different for the Typhoon.
1 Like
Fingers crossed Gunjob and Flame have sources for it
1 Like
The MiG-23MLD & F-8E’s IRST don’t provide video output, the aforementioned systems and PIRATE do, so are arbitrarily treated differently.
1 Like
Well… Heres hoping they dont royally screw up the Typhoon
2 Likes
Don’t worry (too much) I’m sure there will be similar issues with the F/A-18’s assorted pods ( availability pending implemented variant(s) & specific configuration / client) as well;
NITEHAWK ( AN/AAS-38 )
ATFLIR ( AN/ASQ-228 )
LITENING ( AN/AAQ-28(V)3 )
So it likely won’t be entirely alone this patch. and with new airframes there is always the possibility for the implementation to be revised with the upcoming update.
The thing im worried most about is high thrust meaning a very hot target and no improvements to BOL.
2 Likes
Sources dont matter, we bug reported everything about the AN/AXX-1 TCS for the F-14B the moment the dev server opened, from every single function it has, its zoom, its slew angles, what weapons it can and cant be used to fire, even its exact scan pattern, they modelled none of it. Expect the same for PIRATE.
5 Likes
Yeah the F-14 TISEO system is beyond broken and even the Platan system on the Su-34 does Track properly or just loses its ability to follow the radar lock.
But surprisingly the LANTIRN pod on the F-15E will track your radar target without fail, in some experiences if you are guiding a GBU to a target and track a target on your radar the TGP will override your target point and start tracking the radar target and completely mess up your bomb guidance. I’m not sure if the F-15E is meant to be able to have this or not as I can’t see anything about TISEO in the X-Ray information on it.
Simply put unless the devs work hard on improving the already existing and similar systems in-game then I have no faith in a working and useful PIRATE system
I’m hoping they’ll model it closer to a radar. It should have the same utility and similar scan limits. It shouldn’t be like the one on the Mig-29 or 23 etc
Theres plenty out and about for it.
The basic operating principle is already present on the ADAD system found on the Stormer, but its a 20 year older system and has less comptational aide which is the limiting factor on PIRATE.
Depends on what you mean by video output
It’s as simple as; if the detecting element is monolithic (and doesn’t utilize pseudo-imaging techniques) or some form of array of independent detecting elements.
A monolithic detector cannot produce a useful output in an identification sense, but doesn’t need (as) complex electronics to find and track targets, since it can reuse methods and techniques used for the radar.
In game those that do have a video output get access to an extra camera mode(used for navigation, I guess), instead of also having access to independent IR/EO based search & track functionality as found on the US F-8E / MiG-23MLD.
Otherwise aircraft like the F-14 & F-8E, F-4 etc. could substitute the regular Radar Based Search & Track phase of a radar missile engagement for the IRST, with the radar based systems only being used for transmitting missile guidance commands, it should also make the Radar ignore both chaff, flares and notching (since simultaneous use of both methods also allow sum and difference feedback loops to generate corrections to the antenna train angle and so retain angular precision).
1 Like
[insert wiki-esque paragraph]
You’re saying that IR systems without imaging capabilities are given as a IRST such as on the MiG-23 or MiG-29 whereas electro-optical-esque systems with the ability to display an image are treated like guidance pods functionality.
Somewhat.
There is an arbitrary distinction made in game that causes them to lose access to the “Search and Track” functionality that these systems should retain, which they erroneously lose with the criteria seeming to be if a video output is provided (For VID purposes), and as such can no longer be used as an independent alternate sensor, in place of being slaved to the Radar and so effectively makes them entirely redundant and not provide any actual benefit to having the system slaved to the radar, outside of some limited capacity for VID.
Thus the upcoming implementation of the PIRATE sensor for the Eurofighter will likely not break with the established precedent of said familiy systems being dysfunctional considering what is known of the performance characteristics and capabilities.
And based on bug reports that yet remain “to be actioned” for similar systems that it is unlikely that this would change, and that reducing expectations that the system would be at all useful when implemented is probably for the best considering said precedent.
1 Like
@MiG_23M I’ll reply here to save derailing the Flanker thread any more. Aside from the bypass ratio what is your reasoning for believing it cannot supercruise? It’s kind of hard to follow the discussion in the Flanker thread because of the amount of flanker related posts between each Eurofighter post, and I can’t find all your posts through your profile as it’s private.
The EJ200 uses a bypass ratio of 0.4, while the F119 and M88 use 0.3, but beyond that they seem pretty similar. Contrary to what you claim the EJ200 actually has a slightly lower turbine inlet temperature than the F119 or M88, and the pressure ratio is nearly the same for all three:
| Engine | Bypass ratio | Turbine Inlet Temperature (K) |
Pressure Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| EJ200 | 0.4 | 1,800 | 26:1 |
| M88 | 0.3 | 1,850 | 24.5:1 |
| F119 | 0.3 | 1,922 | 26:1 |
And the F119 is also a much larger engine than the EJ200. The EJ200 is better in terms of thrust to weight ratio.
| Engine | Mil Thrust (lb) | Max Thrust (lb) | Mass (lb) | Mil TWR | Max TWR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EJ200 | 13,500 | 20,200 | 2,180 | 6.19 | 9.26 |
| F119 | 26,000 | 35,000 | 5,000 | 5.2 | 7.0 |
14 Likes
You want a high mass flow rate, aided by a high exhaust velocity. (High dry thrust rating)… Lower bypass ratios and higher pressure ratios assist this greatly. Higher pressure ratios come with additional heat. Having a higher bypass helps alleviate some of this heat but comes at the detriment of higher parasitic drag around the core that is not aiding mass flow rate or the overall pressure ratio much if at all. Any air that can escape around the core after some point… will.
Yes it is not a directly comparable engine which is why I tried to compare mostly to the RM12 and the M88. The static numbers for T/W on the F119 are worse but it is almost guaranteed that the dynamic thrust numbers especially dry are considerably more than the EJ200. The Eurofighter has an advantage when it comes to wave drag but is mitigated heavily when ordnance is carried compared to the F-22.
Still, the F-22 is said to accelerate faster dry than the F-15 does wet beyond the sound barrier and it was stated that the Raptor actually had more issues slowing itself down to the target cruising speed of 1.5M than it did getting there in the first place. They would accidentally pass the target speed often and needed to cut power to stay in the efficient range. Here is the original quote;
“Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor,” said Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. “The difficulty was keeping the Raptor from going faster than the target speed. Yesterday the airplane demonstrated that it can achieve awesome speed, flying above 1.5 Mach at a low power setting, for a sustained period of time. No other fighter in the world can do that.”
Moore flew yesterday’s mission, piloting the first flight-test F-22 off the assembly line. He was pushed by Raptor 01’s two powerful Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines to speeds greater than Mach 1.5 during a two hour flight over Edwards.
“The F-22 is designed to dominate future air combat by integrating supercruise with advanced avionics and stealth,” said Brig. Gen. Michael Mushala, Aeronautical Systems Center’s F-22 program director, commenting about the significant milestone.
Jet engines typically will produce better fuel efficiency if they can sit at a given velocity with an exhaust velocity similar to the free-stream inlet velocity. Since this is not possible for a low bypass turbojet which requires an exhaust velocity much greater than the inlet’s - there must be a compromise. High bypass turbojets are most efficient in this regard because the exhaust velocity can be much closer to the cruising speed of the aircraft, but this is not the case when discussing turbofans for fighter jets.
Fighter jets cannot utilize high bypass turbojets because they require much higher excess thrust. To accomplish this while maintaining some of the benefits of the bypass primarily for cooling or afterburner performance (but also to some degree of efficiency), they utilize a low bypass turbofan.
So, a compromise must be made. The exhaust velocity must be high enough to produce the necessary dry thrust to propel the fighter beyond the sound barrier and up to the efficient speed range but not high enough that it is not efficiently cruising at such an airspeed. The F-22 clearly found a compromise, and actually is over-built for the purpose as it tends to run past the efficiency range and accelerates too much in certain conditions beyond the target of 1.5M as stated in the quote above. Still, it can be very efficient as it is stated that they conducted a 2 hour flight where at one point they were supercruising up to 1.5 mach.
1 Like
@Flame2512 It is totally off topic but I wanted to inquire because perhaps the EJ200 shares similar technology that I just didn’t know about;
The YF119 of the F-22 was chosen over the YF120 of the YF-23 because it had fewer parts and was made of cheaper materials - potentially being lower risk and saving them a lot of money. The YF119 became the infamous F119 engine of the F-22 with its’ fancy thrust vectoring nozzles and whatnot. So what could be more complex than a TVC supercruise capable engine?
The YF120 had a variable bypass ratio and was made of materials that could handle much higher heat and pressure ratios. The engine was adaptable, capable of changing the pressure ratio and other flow stream patterns to be efficient at much higher supersonic speeds without the use of the afterburner than the F-22, which we know could already supercruise at 1.5+ mach.
So I suppose my question is;
Does the EJ200 have such technology and it just isn’t discussed often? I know the design ques that make supercruise possible for turbofans are rarely discussed in online forums so it would not surprise me if they just hadn’t discussed such a thing. This is also what makes the F135 capable of supercruise as well. The AL-41 variants used in the Su-35 and the Su-57 have a variable bypass ratio that allows them to supercruise (up to 1.1 and 1.3 mach respectively, somewhat poor due to the high bypass ratios they start with).
I haven’t seen anything about it here and I don’t see anything suggesting it in the pictures of the design as compared to the YF-23 schematics seen on other aerospace forums.