The colour of the missile confused me. I only saw Brimstones as black missiles so far, while SPEARs were always light grey (like in the picture) ^^
It’s great that the eurofighter is now compatible with twin pylon Aim-120s, however it just doesn’t feel right because it’s never been tested although it’s technically possible. And the fitment doesn’t look quite right especially when brimstones or gbu’s are mounted next to it.
1 Like
@Gunjob may I ask if We should stuff which is allready Accepted for the old EFs again for the new ones or are the old reports enough?
Example the Overexpending Engine nozzles on full AB
1 Like
This is where it gets difficult. How is the integration done? Are the GaN and GaAs modules integrated into a single transceiver where GaAs is the preamp (for signal quality as they have better linearity than GaN) while GaN is used as signal amplifier (for strength of the signal as GaN can output ten times the power of GaAs)? Or are there two types of transceivers used in the radar, one with GaN and one with GaAs?
The pure GaN Mk.1 radar will have the higher power (for better range and better target detection/stronger echoes because of better sensibility) while the Mk.2 will have the better signal quality for its EW usage (for example to better spoof signals). Depending on the intgeration the Mk.2 will be able to do everything the Mk.1 can do with the same performance (single transceiver with GaAs + GaN). If they use two types of transceivers the number for each gets cut in half, meaning half the performance of the Mk.1 in signal strength and only half the possible strength in EW.
I would have personally prefered inner rail AMRAAMs over the double mounts myself. it was an interesting choice by them
9 Likes
That would open propably more stuff they dont want.
can you do 2 ASRAAM 4 AIM-120D and 2 Meteor?
In theory we could do 2+4+4 now.
I think IRL, 2x IRIS-T, 2x Aim-120D, 4x Meteor is a fit the Germans have run
2 Likes
No I’ll add the new ones to the existing reports when I get a moment.
2 Likes
i think 4 120D and 2 Meteor is better for WT. but 2+4+4 would also be amazing
For WT, maybe
It depends on how Meteor / 120Ds are modeled and what maps we’ve got
I dont have an Pic, but here me out:
2x Aim-9
4x Aim-120B(headon surprise)
4x AIM-120C-5 for the Start of the match
Maybe, My personal playstyle is defensive, quite well suited to the C5s, and im too lazy to deal with switching between Bs and C5s. So i just run pure C5s
Same, on live I run full C-5 because Faster missile = Better )))
Spawn → climb to 10 km → fire 4 C-5 at 65-70km → get 1-3 kills → Use last 4 missiles in closer fight
1 Like
Yeah, I have a similar ish playstyle
Quick question but shouldn’t are new Typhoon (aesa) be called Typhoon TR3 ??
I agree the name is probably wrong / annoys me, but Id just go with “Typhoon FGR4 (Late)” or “Typhoon FGR4 Centurion” or "Typhoon FGR4 (P4E) or something. Tranches get messy imo.
Decided to do a thread for it. If anyone has any thoughts:
2 Likes
I do wonder if people are reading too much into the GaN / GaAs statements. For example imagine a situation where both ECRS Mk 1 and Mk 2 have GaAs technology somewhere in them (arguably quite likely). For the Mk 1 the marketing department could have said “the radar uses new GaN technology” (which does not exclude GaAs also being used in parts of the radar). While For the Mk 2 the marketing material might still acknowledge that GaAs still used in parts of the radar.
Unless there is a statement which says that the Mk 1 uses 100% GaN components everywhere in the radar (please let me know if there is, because that would be interesting), and a statement telling you exactly where in the Mk 2 radar GaAs is used It is hard to judge to what extent the Mk 1 has a greater use of GaN. It could just be that the Mk 1s use of GaAs has never been mentioned in marketing while we Mark 2s has.
Anyway, one of the advantages of the Mk 2 over the Mk 1 is stated to be “extended range missile guidance”. So I very much doubt the Mk2 has worse range.
1 Like