Imagine how annoying an F-15E with it’s post-EPAWSS 360 cm count would be when loaded with britecloud lol
Imagine trying to defeat an F-15EX with EPAWSS when you’re in a Raptor and he can not only detect that you’re tracking him with a LPI radar, but also jam it and decoy your limited number of missiles with ease.
Now you’re working to turn off your RF signature and evade his up to 22 AMRAAM’s in return. lol.
This is why AIM-260 will be huge in modern environments. The systems it has are crucial.
Would be crazy huh, but I thought that even with the double amraam CFT things, it only goes up to 16 amraams, and the quad racks dont work
Funny thing is, that F-15EX will have AIM-260 as well lol
As F-15 are BOL compatible on wing stations, each wing station has 2 amraam so that’s 2 BOL pylon per wing station. F-15EX has 4 wing station so 8 BOL launchers total. With 160 CM per launcher, that is a staggering 1280 BOL + 360 regular
Assuming they fix BOL by then, a 640 flare, 640 chaff, 360 britecloud load out would be the way to go for the EX
Back on the topic of Eurofighter - they should be well aware of potential multiple seeker designs because the US had posed these features as a potential upgrade to sparrows we were trying to sell them as early as 1970.
True, modern 2 way DL effectively makes stuff like 120D a multi mode seeker missile when paired with full size AESA and IRST
Any news on the reports for STR and acceleration? Even on min fuel I still can’t get the thing to pull brakes off to mach in under 30sec.
It appears to be accelerating and turning at the correct time and rates. I don’t recall it being brakes off to mach in 30 seconds, rather wheels up to mach in ~30 seconds.
ive only seen it claimed its “brakes off” to mach, not seen “wheels up” before
it’s brakes off not wheels up according to the BAE brochure and other marketing material. Also how can it have the correct sustained turn if Flame (I think it was Flame lol) showed it couldn’t even match the initial requirements that the prototype exceeded?
3 Likes
here mig, i dont know how i can notify you without replying and notifying flame here cause i dont use the forums a lot
In that case it says from 200 knots to supersonic in 30 seconds, not brakes off to supersonic in 30 seconds… so we were both wrong there.
Statshark seems to imply the performance is slightly below 20 deg/s in full fuel configuration and above 22 deg/s on min if I recall what someone else had posted earlier. I have not reviewed the sustained turns in-game but based on that data I had made the assumption that it was good to go.
Still, it considerably overperforms in other areas in ways that make it essentially a UFO - totally exceeding angle of attack limits that would cause departure and total flow separation (no attached airflow over the top of the wing).
One part says 200kts to supersonic, other official sources in that same post claim brakes off to supersonic. As flame pointed out the brakes off to supersonic claim was used in presentations too.
I had a look at the more recent bug report Community Bug Reporting System
It was rejected outright and the mod claimed that the current performance matches ESR-D, which we know from an earlier post in here that the prototype aircraft with Tornado engines exceeded. So it’s clearly significantly lower than it should be.
I agree though the instantaneous turn/AoA is a bit mental at the moment. Rafale should be beating EFT in instantaneous and EFT should be winning in sustained rate.
4 Likes
As I said in the comment he linked you to the Eurofighter website says 200 kts to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds, while the BAE Systems datasheet implies Brakes off to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds, and Eurofighter also claim brakes off to Mach 1 in under 30 seconds in some marketing material.
I would speculate that 200 kts to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds is for a fully loaded aircraft (missiles and maybe tanks), while Brakes off to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds is clean.
Or alternatively the website was just understating the true performance.
7 Likes
I understand that in your opinion the vortex generator and slats perform a purely decorative function, yes?
I wonder, is there something in the Typhoon that in YOUR opinion works correctly and you do not seek to belittle/nerf it?
Over the last few days you have challenged:
Towed Decoy
Dynamic Characteristics
AoA
Turn performance
MAWS
I’m sure you think the radar is working properly? Well, it just works like crap, so I guess everything is fine, right? Some kind of deja vu. Something similar happened a year ago.
9 Likes
“the vortex generator and slats perform a purely decorative function”
Did he seriously say that? Bloody hell.
When it comes to this subject I genuinely think he’s lacking the self-awareness or discernment to know what he’s coming out with. In which case my postings about him probably come across as incredibly insensitive; for I did not know he was so afflicted.
1 Like
He doesn’t care.
5 Likes
Haha, why waste time to pay attention to him? Because it’s rare that Gaijin didn’t make Typhoon into the second Tornado “flying board brick”, so he had to make public opinion to make it worse.
5 Likes
If you made a post about growing grass, he’d post a reply with a customer testimonial from a grass growing manual that somehow proves his point that NATO grass is overperforming.
7 Likes
Just one understanding that he’s spending days on the poor pages, just to make some plane in this game less good, and to make other people angry, makes a good picture of his personality tbh
It’s wider problem than just the flogman.
Majority of people on this forum aren’t objective enough to have constructive discussions about how their plane, tank or ship performs. At the end of the day, it’s a game and games are meant to be fun over being realistic.
Does the Typhoon have some quirks in terms of FM accuracy? Absolutely. Find me a plane that doesn’t.