Fair enough. I just dug out my EAP book and that is indeed more or less the point of that intake, as well as ensuring coherent airflow at high AoA margins and providing engine growth potential.
But I accept that its a model limitation here.
1 Like
But that requires effort :( Gaijin doesn’t like that. Next major you’ll get a Australian Superhornet copy and paste and you’ll like it!
2 Likes
Unfortunately. That is what Im potentially expecting
1 Like
To be honest with you if the only way to get the F/A-18F in-game is through Australia;
(because Gaijin seems to not like adding twin seat versions of planes (especially to the nation that actually built them cough cough F-16D))
then I honestly wouldn’t mind getting that over an AESA EFT (for now anyway especially if the only difference it will come with is the radar which is what I’m personally expecting Gaijin to do).
maybe the T4 EF will come with a HUD that isnt stretched
Or a working gunsight.
Or the PIRATE MFD page.
wow slow down there now you are asking for too much at once
8 Likes
Clearly a marketing lie
Surely we will get the Taurus Instead now that an report went trough as an Suggestion))))
1 Like
10 Likes
before the addition of LMUR and JAGM type missiles on platforms with DIRCM I could kind of understand their hesitation but now we have helis firing off very good FNF missiles that are also nearly invulnerable to SPAA so I don’t believe gaijins arguments against brimstone FNF as the EFT doesn’t have magical DIRCM. I hope we get something better soon as its getting boring with laser guided only weapons.
Yeah, I agree.
2 Likes
That’s it. Typhoon never had engines it was all a marketing lie
Give the pilot an oar to row with
It is quite funny that the aicraft accelerates slower exiting a turn, with 300km/h worth of airflow into the engine, than it does taking off at 100km/h, and the devs don’t see any problem with it
It’s called typhoon, hence it flies using DARPAs weather manipulators. Obviously.
They’re out to be serviced by a techno-priest in that image.
1 Like
Or and hear me out here… You’re talking nonsense? Very simple, measure thrust at a fixed speed at different AOAs and you find its the same.
3 Likes
Yeah it wouldnt change much, but having played J-10 I would say its still great.
The thing is, radar angles apply to HMS. So you can hardlock people 85 degrees off boresight WHILE rolling into them for a launch, and then launch as soon as its within missile’s gimbal limits. Its kind of hard to explain, but trust me, its way more convenient than 70 and God forbid 60 for HOBS.
Afaik, most, if not all jets at top tier (and possibly in-game) do this.
Theres a notable dip in acceleration, which is at its lowest in the ballpark of M0.3 at sea level (~368kph) because though there isnt much difference between static thrust and thrust at M0.3, there is much higher drag at M0.3.
Edit: took another look at the acceleration charts and apparently the lowest point is ~M0.15 not M0.3, either I made a mistake, or something changed in the meantime.
1 Like
LOBL has extremely limited range for mmW seekers due to the hard cap on resolution imposed by the diffraction limit. The AGM-114L for example can only be fired out to something around 3 km in LOBL mode, it simply can’t get a lock off the rail at further ranges. And that’s at realistic targets, not 30+ randomly moving player vehicles plus wrecks crammed into a 300x300 m square.