Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion (Part 2)

60km theoretically…. Consider 2 things:
1: tpod doesn’t work beyond 30 right now so SAL is 30km whether we like it or not
2: it’ll get there in 2-3 business days and that’s assuming gaijin models the motor and seeker life correctly to get that far. I mean our current brimstone has a “20km” range but will never get that far while still having the seeker on.

Most missiles in game can’t hit things at 1/3 of their stated ranges unless the target is either stationery or travelling in a straight line. I wouldn’t hold my breath even if 60km Brimstones are introduced.

There are also scale mockups of the MFRL on the inner pylon shown at DSEI

4 Likes

Sorry comrade, Russian mockups only

6 Likes

Just going to point out that the F/A-18 isn’t cleared for the BRU-61, only the -55, so would only have access to dual stores stations not quad, so has access to 8x AURs total.

The DON has adjusted the platform integration strategy through the inclusion of F/A-18 E/F using BRU-55 to deliver the capability to the warfighter aligned to adjusted F-35 program’s schedule

GBU-53-underwing

It might later-on get access to the Triple Rail configuration of the MML (TER-9A/A + MRL / HSRL family of launch rail), but that’s a future decision I’ve seen no movement towards, but with UAI being a thing it shouldn’t require much work.

Wasnt this the Eurofighter Thread?
Could Swear it was

No this has become the general aviation thread in which we talk about everything plane related

4 Likes

Next Step: Missile Talk

1 Like

No problem, already here:

next step?

looking back at it c5 simply had placeholder stats from when before amraam a/b got heavily nerfed. it makes sense they would nerf it, as they had left it untouched in the same state that it was in since it first dropped in the files.

This could be the case, but my point was that they should have thought of making a better performing seeker, compared to the A/B, from the getgo. It makes no sense that we don’t have differently modelled seekers at top tier yet, except for the MICA.

The C5 is an already poor performing missile, a “harder to defeat” seeker would have been fine tbh, at least to make it superior for the 2 minutes of BVR phase in the match.

As of now throwing the whole amraam loadout at the start of the match is pointless, for how easy it is to evade, and once you get to the WVR phase the MICAs and R-77’s are obviously gonna perform better.

The report has been seen, but it doesn’t make much sense when Su-30s have clearly been seen fitted with the racks of more than just the 2 x R-77 claimed on earlier documentation. As such, taking into account footage of Su-30s with these racks fitted, the devs consider this loadout viable.

Spoiler

image

Last time I checked, this was also the Eurofighter thread. So please keep it on track.

2 Likes

Smin, to stay on topic, if we would get an mail from the Bundeswehr which confirms that the 8 AMRAAMs would be possible in theory, would that be enough for an report?

1 Like

It would be required to also know where.

1 Like

But… It is Su-30 with R-77 on air intake pylon…

11 Likes

Yea, forgot the mention it before (speaking offcourse about the Inner Pylon)

If it can be confirmed as possible by an official source on active aircraft and on what pylon station, then its open to a suggestion report and down to the devs to decide.

2 Likes

Good :)
In this case, Time to Pray for an answer

1 Like

I literally posted that in the su27 thread and said it’s misleading lol, look carefully.
image
Single rack
That second r77 is on the intake pylon

9 Likes

Yeah, sure guy. Come back to me when the plane ends up overnerfed and underperforms massively because the whine never stopped even after it was corrected.