I doubt IFF, but should slave the TGP and if they ever fix the render distances, the zoom + quality on it should be enough for decent range VIDs without IFF.
But you can also just swap a radar lock over to IRST.
So you could TWS IFF someone and then either lock them and swap the lock to IRST or just manually lock the target with IRST.
In either case, would enable you to track the target and set up an intercept. With no radar scans at all to tip of the target until the AMRAAM is fired, its going to make it far harder for them to pre-react to the threat, by closing the distance before firing they’ll have a matter of seconds to react that is unlikely enough time to do anything about it.
if nothing else, you dont have to deal with fumbling between radar and IRST in a fight.
But yeah, heavily at the mercy of how its modeled in terms of range
@Flame2512 Convergent-Divergent nozzle of EFT is not optimized for supercruise. You brought this up previously. I’d hazard a guess the RM12 and M88-3 are better optimized nozzles for dry-supersonic conditions.
Additionally, this source indirectly confirms what we already knew - the ASRAAM had neutral or negative stability and doesn’t need to maintain significantly high AoA compared to other more stable designs when launched at low airspeeds. Source
This improves tip-off error as stated… more on that here; source
Doubtful, considering the Harrier doesn’t have an afterburner. It looks like it’s writing about either a prototype and/or a consideration paper for a TVC equipped Eurofighter.
Found the other TWS scan modes for the N001 V004, 60x10°, 60x20° (i call this AWACS mode in sim, cuz its volumetric scan rate and raw scan volume is high enough to direct friendlies on targets like an AWACS), and 30x20°.
Ingame scan modes for the Su-34’s radar. Buddy of mine who runs the plane and plays a mix of the bomber and AWACS role in sim with it confirmed the scan patterns for me.
Older (by time of addition) radar in the game were using scan rates that were often guess work, which led them to being very fast. MiG-29 was one of the first radars with realistic scan rates 57°/s, because we actually had an easy to find source. F-16 on the other hand had 120°/s because of no sources, lol (F-14 was even crazier).
After some reporting, those were brought down to earth, and it seems that newer radar don’t have outlandish scan rates now, even if they are guess work.
I think if they give high area scan modes to the Captor-M, they are going to be with a pretty long period.
Though, I guess if it is not something like >8 seconds, it might be quite useful for Sim, or one of those rare clutch RB games where you have to scan around to find the enemy.
Dunno why I wrote this, I got excited for no reason, lol
hehe, Blue Vixen is already a pretty decent starting point. Just need a little faster scan rate and maybe slightly wider vertical view and it would be perfect
The Eurofighter was planned with TVC initially, or at the very least it was heavily considered to the point that they developed a demonstrator engine. They decided against the addition, likely due to the already high maintenance requirements of such fighters. Feel free to read the source I linked, it goes into more detail.
There is also this document, which implies that they could add it upon request from partners. No one has asked for it as of yet in spite of the potential benefits to performance. Likewise, it does not seem they have explored any upgrades for the engine itself in spite of the fact that they theorized 30% + performance enhancements.
This is the specifications given by the Germans in 1998 or so for the EJ200
“thrust class” must be a different figure than “static thrust” or “uninstalled thrust”. I have yet to find documentation for British or European engines that details how they measure the thrust before installation or as-installed.
Additionally, there is the matter of growth potential. (See final graphs below)
This document details (quite well, actually) the possible improvements to the EJ200 including potential for 20% improved SFC in supercruise conditions, an area where it currently lacks. Source
Quite unusual imo that they put all of this information out to the public. It’s not exactly technical documentation and blueprints but it certainly shows how little they care for the secrets of conventional non-bypass turbofan technology these days. Especially since the US tested a variable bypass turbofan for the YF-23 back in the 90s iirc.
