No idea what you’re trying to say here, although not shocked you don’t understand the importance of wing loading.
Wing loading is an important characteristic of aircraft flight performance. The EF has a much better wing loading than the F-14. It also has a much better TWR.
The document earlier compared performances in sustained rate. It showed it was inferior to the F-16C, and we know the F-14B has a better rate in similar conditions. How is comparing wing loading going to change that?
Is it necessary to attack people when you’re having a discussion?
Your Aussie air power source?
Not at all, just deserved in this circumstance.
@SlowHandClap
Can’t do all your work for you
Also doesn’t really help your argument to be constantly insulting the other party.
F-14 has better effective wing loading than the Typhoon due to the lifting body.
Typhoon wing loading is around 312kg/m^2
F-14D effective wing loading is 230kg/m^2
Regarding the rate fight, the Eurofighter is roughly equivalent to an F-16 below 10000ft exceeds it as the altitude rises according to Italian pilots:
Which is corroborated by the Indian MMRCA competition stating the EF2000 demonstrated only 0.3°/s lower STR at 5000ft (ie: below 10000ft):
And explains ex-german Eurofighter pilots explanation of the relative performance of a Eurofighter vs an F-16:
The Eurofighter is a dogfighting, and more specifically, a rate fighting monster. It has massive TWR, low wing loading, and great aerodynamics.
Beyond the fact that it effectively matches or exceeds the F-16 in all flight regimes (except aoa on early Eurofighters without the AMK kit), the Eurofighter also just brings more endurance in fuel, weapons, and countermeasures to the table.
Are you using the effective wing loading from Wikipedia? Because that figure includes the entire fuselage area as lifting surface, and I’m sceptical of that, especially as the source is a YouTube video.
Ehhh, while the Typhoon doesnt have the first shoot capabilities of the F-35, it has a VASTLY better defensive suite.
The radar based MAWS being able to detect missiles that have already cooled down, dedicated jammers that can target side-/rearwards, chaff (especially in combination with the jammer illuminating it more), dropped active radar decoys, the towed radar jammers (although the F-35 does have those as well)
German and Italian Typhoons can then also use their IRIS-T as hardkill interceptors (AIM-9X or ASRAAM cant be used for this purpose as their laser fuze is too likely to just miss small-ish missiles)
Meanwhile the F-35 can only carry 4 AMRAAM internally, Sidekick still isnt ready, any external stores will destroy the advantage of its stealth, and if its empty, it cant run away because its both slower and its exhaust area is much more visible on both radar and IR
I’m not saying the Eurofighter can just kill the F-35 like it wants, but I am believing it has a non insignificant chance of outlasting the F-35
Umm?
Especially since it’s an F-18 engine.
IRIS-T was mentioned in the long list of over 200 posts I skimmed.
Not yet; AIM-9X, IRIS-T, AAM-5B, MICA IR, et cetera are a bit too heavy for War Thunder currently IMO.
F-18E with AESA was mentioned as better than EF Typhoon. I don’t know when/if Tranche 3 was introduced so I cannot comment on that.
I mean if we got the Tornado F.3 a bit earlier, F-14A time or earlier, we wouldve had a very nice BVR capable aircraft that would’ve matched the F-14. admittedly in close combat that wouldve fallen down a bit, but that was always going to be the case. Now we’re stuck with a DOA Tornado that no one wants to play, and I fear the Eurofighter is going the same way.
Is that based on any facts, or an just assumption?
Wouldn’t know but considering that they are both used in a Surface Launch configuration to target drones and rockets I don’t think it’s likely to much of an issue with the fuse.
Considering that they both also have LOAL capabilities as long as the incoming missile could be detected they should be able to track it once they close the distance or are otherwise directed by the datalink.
If it would be something that I have proof of is another thing entirely and on what missile for example the AIM-54 at 15" in diameter falls squarely within the listed Cruise missile diameter range. and further which subvariant of the AIM-9X you were referring to the -1, -2 or -2+ as they all have different capabilities, I’m sure it would be similar to the ASRAAM’s developments.
Well first of the IRIS-T is the only one that actually advertises this feature, with the proximity fuze being noted as one of the distinguishing factors, and then theres also simple geometry with laser fusing:
At a miss distance of 1 meter, against a round body with a radius of 0.89cm (so AMRAAM), a laser has a window of only ~10° to actually hit the target. AIM-9X uses the same proximity fuze as the earlier AIM-9 versions (havent found anything hinting to a change between 9X version), so it projects 4 beams. Thats 40° total, in the other 320° the fuse wont activate.
Tbh no clue how many beams the ASRAAM projects. Edit: Just visually confirmed its also 4
I also wouldnt really put drones, unguided rockets or cruise missiles at the same level as air-air missiles, as they are either slow, non manouvering, or both, compared to air-air missiles that fly at high supersonic speeds and have to maneuver themselves in order to intercept a plane
There’s no reason to fear EF Typhoon. It’s likely a next year item alongside Rafale, 2000s F-15C, etc.
We’re just not at the BR for all those aircraft quite yet.
~2014 for T3
I honestly cant see how that works? Its a laser, it physically cant cover area except if it had some kind of beam steering and physically sweeped its area, of which I am not reading anything …
not yet, but from a Brit perspective they do have form…
but i’ll be optimistic and hope you’re right on this one
Why would the laser not be able to cover that much area? Lasers aren’t always a narrow beam.
