Here it is, lol, 160°/s. 80°x8° scan:
Looks like Fox Hunter (Tornado F3) in game right now.
Oh my bad, screwed up the name
Damn, you are right. 8 bars each 60^{\,\circ} wide in 3 seconds \implies 160^{\,\circ}/s scan rate.
No worries, you just broke my heart, is all.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
.
.
.
To achieve all of this the following is required;
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.
1 Like
Bruh, i need to grind british faster…
@Flame2512 Something we should also research is the potential for the Eurofighter’s radar to have lower probability of intercept than older mechanical scan designs, through techniques like these;
Source
Tornado F3 had LPI, so EF having it would not be a suprise.
I don’t think it can be considered true “LPI” like as-is on AESA radars though due to the separate TR modules.
True or not, reduction of detection range from 36nm to 2-6nm is a thing.
Do we have any information about the AESA sensor arrays of the DASS being able to keep track of not just missiles, but close enemy aircraft as well?
I’ve not seen anything more than highly questionable speculation on internet forums.
1 Like
Dont see why it wouldnt be able to tbf, unless theres a filter on to avoid detecting aircrafts, but this could risk interfearing with larger threats like SAM’s.
Still speculation at the end of the day though.
1 Like
Different numbers, later ones
Spoiler
So EF also has a special rotor blade design and manufacturing process aimed to reduce thermal deformation. Allowing higher temperatures along the whole construction.
About Racks
Unfortunatelly the time took the photos of what I was looking for
The sources are as stated
Spoiler
2 Likes
Call me crazy, but I think left to right, the numbers represent the numbers of weapons the respective station can take from wintip to centerline…
0-1-0-1-2-0 for AMRAAM would match the current 6x AMRAAM load plus the additional wingroot ALDERU pylon AMRAAM we’ve been trying to prove.
1-2-0-0-0-0 for all SRAAM’s represents the 6x load of SRAM’s seen in-game.
Its actually tragic the picture is gone.
Same loadout as seen here though:
2 Likes
I doubt the picture would show this loadout, I think it was just a ref
It’s a random website so not necessarily reliable though.
3 Likes