Glad to see “currently” in there, I do think it’s alright for now considering the engine may well not allow several seekers to operate at the same time.
I’m sure I don’t have to explain that proving a negative is impossible.
Why vikhrs never have been separated into proxy fuze/impact fuze? At the time it was actively harrasing every top tier lobby that would’ve cut a good portion of concerned people. The logic is the same - chosing the option before launch.
You dont. Im just pointing out there is currently nothing to suggest even logically to the devs that Typhoon would be incompatable with any Brimstone after its integration. Hence why we have it.
Fuses are generally handled differently in missiles to guidance modes.
Which is a logical argument, i’m just pointing out that it’s probably a good time to consider either a F&F variant or brimstone 2, compatibility entirely aside, just to maintain capability:
Is there information about inner pylons of Typhoon being incompatable with 2 additional AIM-120s?
Besides the “suggested” weaponry layouts.
Sadly there is no variant that is not MMW.
A suggestion report has already been submitted for this. It remains down to the developers discretion.
3 Likes
We dont have any information to suggest it was realised currently.
If there was, it would become open to reportable suggestion consideration.
Is there an existing report outside the forums suggesting the ways to implement MMW correctly as people have been suggesting here? Giving smoke chaff capacity (like they have with IR) and/or making ordinance beyond 6 weapons proportionately more expensive.
All of these factors have been previously considered by the developers.
Isn’t that the same thing? We don’t have information that Brimstone 1 is compatible (was realised) the EF but we assume so as the later variants can be used. We don’t have any information that AMRAAMs can be used (was realised) on the inner pylons but we assume it can’t even if the other pylons can? Is this the famous duality of mind?
And what was the conclusion? I’m interested as to understand how what would effectively with those changes be a worse weapon than the other toptier F&F missiles (particularly with helis getting 16 now!!) would not be justified.
It’s not a question of compatibility though, it’s a question of anachronism. DMSB stocks no longer existed when Typhoon started using Brimstone.
It was an interim weapon of limited production, which was expended through operational use on Tornado GR.4. By 2016, Tornado GR.4s were already using Brimstone 2 because production had switched to that variant, and DMS was being used up. Procurement of DMSB was done only on the basis of maintaining an operational stock for Tornado
Question 153. the PUS promised to give the Committee information about the mismatch of available ordnance, in particular Brimstone, in where the Armed Forces need them
There is no mismatch in the availability of Brimstone. Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone (DMSB) is an air launched anti-armour missile resourced under Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) arrangements originally specifically for use in Op TELIC (Iraq) but subsequently authorised as an Op HERRICK(Afghanistan) UOR. Defence does not hold a contingent stockpile of UOR weapon types. Instead, sufficient weapons are procured to just meet the predicted needs of OP HERRICK. However, in light of DMSB’s characteristics of accuracy and reduced risk of collateral damage, stocks waiting delivery in the UK were prioritised and moved from Afghanistan for use in Op ELLAMY to meet the operational imperative. Immediate action was taken to procure additional DMSB (with three months lead time) to meet the continuing needs of OP ELLAMY and to replenish stocks for OP HERRICK, during which time usage in Afghanistan was carefully managed. Subsequent replenishment action allowed Op HERRICK to return to routine activity levels, with stocks sufficient to sustain the operation, prior to the introduction of Brimstone 2, DMSB’s replacement missile. Brimstone 2 will be a “core” funded munition and will therefore be stored in larger number, as is usual.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/828/828we02.htm
Between its introduction in 2008 and 2012 alone, the RAF had used 200 of the total 500 DMS Brimstone manufactured at that time.
Typhoon didn’t use Brimstone until 3 years after Tornado started using Brimstone 2, by which time every DMSB had been fired, leaving only the MMW Brimstone 1 and Brimstone 2 in the UK’s inventory.
Not at all. We know Brimstones were integrated and we have no information to suggest Brimstone dual mode is not compatible with a carrier that has Brimstone 2 integrated.
Comapred to the AMRAAM pylon, which currnetly is not even clear if it existed or has been fitted.
Stock / inventory has not been a required consideration. Such as the case with the F-4F and AIM-9J or the Thai Alpha jet gunpod.
Alternatively.
Pgms, Hosbo, spice 250.
Out of those PGMS and Hosbo have proven testing firing on the eft already and acknowledged.
Its just take gajin realy doesnt wanna take a stance on the matter.
PGMs have IIR seekers as well and shiuld be implemented like the KH38MT.
It just looks like gajin has a grudge against the eft, and purposively keeps its capabilities down
4 Likes
I need that sound modelled for the gun.
I love a nice cracking punchy sound. It’s why the GSH-30 is probably my favourite sounding gun in-game (oh and its great to use too IDK why the Gsh-23 continues to be used in half the planes it is when it sucks).
This is a lie, Indian f3r shares a lot in common with f4.1 standard.
It directly takes stuff like the spi3 pylon and the 4.1 irst and such
1 Like
Played the Typhoon a bit today, just to kinda round up the kills and grind the swiss Mirage, jeez, radar was literally tweaking so bad, had to rely on HMD a bit too much for comfort.
I hope an ESA Typhoon isn’t that far, maybe for december patch.
Even then hmd sometime requires like me to press the keybind like 5 times to lock an enemy
1 Like