yeah he says “the paveway 4 is not designed to be carried supersonically” which would mean the restriction would be there regardless of what plane you put it on
Well, ofc, as it has very tangible repercussion in the game.
Eg. Tornado got GBU24 denied on glove pylons, probably because its limited to subsonic with them.
But it can still carry them. Not for GJ, though. Talking about double standards.
Well the first point is that @GJ04 is acting like Gaijin are stupid / malicious for ever thinking Paveway IV could be carried supersonically, when ALL evidence prior to that one video being found suggested that it could. So the current status quo is by no means unreasonable, as he implies it to be.
The next question is whether the Paveway IV can actually be carried supersonically, and the balance of probability states that it can be. We know from the presentations and articles that P2E was meant to include supersonic release of Paveway IV, that directly contradicts the pilot’s claim that the Paveway IV was never designed for supersonic carriage (and by implication is inherently unsuitable for supersonic carriage).
In addition in 2014 (so after the presentation and article had already said it was planned to happen) Raytheon announced that as the design authority for Paveway IV they had successfully lifted all flight envelope restriction on the weapon.
The UK Royal Air Force could be as little as four to five months from having its Paveway IV precision-guided bombs fully qualified through the entire Eurofighter Typhoon flight envelope, for carriage using all six of the aircraft’s under-wing carriage points.
New work by Raytheon UK has lifted the remaining Typhoon and Panavia Tornado GR4 flight envelope restrictions
The RAF’s Tornado GR4s also have no restrictions on carriage of up to five Paveway IVs
Marsden says that while the nimble Typhoon and Tornado put far more stress on carried Paveways than the weapon was designed to withstand, its requalification work showed the bomb to be suitable without modification for even the most extreme manoeuvres by the Typhoon. The work also shows the Paveway IV can be carried without restriction by the Typhoon throughout the weapon’s 20-year storage life.
So as the design authority for the weapon Raytheon were pretty clear they had removed all flight envelope restrictions on the weapon, that directly counters the claim from the pilot that the Paveway IV itself is incapable of supersonic carriage.
However as the design authority for the aircraft BAE Systems and the MOD still had to sign off on supersonic clearance. Basically Raytheon had told them they can do it, it’s up to them to decide whether they want to.
Now, Raytheon UK chief weapons engineer T J Marsden says necessary aircraft-level qualification work by Typhoon prime contractor BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence could be completed within months.
The MOD are infamously awkward when it comes to stores clearances. For example about 20 years into Tornadoes’ service they suddenly insisted on running an set of trials to clear the Tornado for flight without stores fitted on the outer pylons. They realised flight with outer pylons, but without stores on those pylons, had never been formally cleared; so suddenly decided that it must be formally trialled in order for aircrews to be allowed to continue doing it.
It should also be noted that the Eurofighter’s ALDERU and AHDERU release units were specifically designed to:
ensure safe separation of a wide range of stores throughout the entire flight envelope
So where does this leave us? Paveway IV was almost certainly capable of being carried / dropped supersonically, but the MOD likely just chose not to authorise it for any number of reasons. And technical capability is the standard Gaijin use these days. Plus they typically do not consider the word of pilots to be a reliable primary source.
An awful lot of of aircraft in the game are not authorised to carry A2G stores at supersonic speeds if you go by the formal stores clearances in the manual, but Gaijin don’t model that as a rule (just like they don’t model maximum load factor being limited to 5g for a lot of aircraft when air to ground stores are carried. For example the F-4E is limited to flying no faster than the lesser of 550 kts IAS / Mach 1.1 with most air to ground stores, according to the flight manual. For the record 550 kts IAS is Mach 0.82 at sea level.
You’d do well not to make assumptions. The Tornado was denied 2,000 lb Paveways on the wing pylons simply because there’s no evidence they were ever fitted there (as much as it is blindingly obvious that they could be fitted).
7 Likes
You also have the tornados limited to Mach 1 bomb release despite having ejector rails that should mean it can drop faster (like other aircraft)
To ppl that are incompetent on the matter, perhaps.
Plus, this is nothing new. I mean, I’m just some guy on the internet, but the gazillion bug report moderators and volunteers, let alone GJ’s devs,can’t come to that by themselves, for a top scoring plane in a flagship tier of the game? Really??
Yeah and it can be launched supersonically, just not in the green separation envelope, but yellow.
The reason the RAF pilot said what he said is most likely peacetime CONOPS.
However, the problem is GJ, selectively applies their own rules.
So, if you apply green employment envelope only, then PW4 can’t be launched supersonically.
If you apply yellow employment envelope, then the PW4 can be launched supersonically, but then the Tornado can also carry GBU24s on the glove pylons.
It would be time for GJ to start employing their own rules consistently.
Cool story, so where do they get primary sources then??
Manuals and CONOPS are bannable offense, operators are ignored, so short of pilots we got nothing.
Or we do and GJ does whatever they want.
Ok, so why allow PW4 then?
Why is it exempt? What makes it special?
OEM’s brochures surely aren’t. CONOPS, NATOPS, operator, or any kinda manual isn’t either.
GJ dismisses pilots, so what is evidence to GJ, then?
what pilots say isnt an accepted source either
1 Like
interviews in general are a no-go mostly iirc
anything that isnt written
unless it is a picture where you say look this MFD page looks wrong or this camo is wrong
The video was uploaded 2 months ago… At the time Gaijin were modelling the Eurofighter, and then the AESA Eurofighters there was literally NO evidence AT ALL, to counter the existing evidence that Paveway IV could be used supersonically. So yes it is reasonable that it was implemented the way it was. Believe it or not devs and tech mods do not religiously watch every new YouTube video about all 2,000+ vehicles in game game, in case one of them reveals some previously unknown information.
Why are you brining the Tornado up? That has literally nothing at all to do with release envelopes.
The previously posted unclassified presentation from Eurofighter, and the OEM product specification for the ALDERU and AHDERU are likely what the current implementation were based on.
Do you mean in game or IRL? No aircraft has carriage speed restriction modelled in game. That’s the entire point.
What are you even going on about at this point?
There are many OEM brochures, declassified manuals, trial reports, and stores clearance documents publicly released for Tornado; all of which are valid primary sources. Hell I literally have 268 pages of GBU-24 clearance trials documentation for the tornado sat on my hard drive. Anyone can go to the National Archives and view all the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment reports on the Tornado GBU-24 development / clearance trials.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C18350204
Photographs showing a weapon fitted to an aircraft are also valid. Unfortunately there are no photos showing GBU-24s fitted to the wing pylon; and no mention in a single Brochure, Manual, Stores clearance chart, or trials report of GBU-24 being fitted to the wing pylons.
2 Likes
Cool story, so what about brochures that show inner wing pylons clearance for HARM?
Or a brochure AND video that show ECRS1 has the same FoR as ECRS2?
Or a USAF page where it says Tornado carries Mk83 JDAMs, that were never implemented in game?
Or a report for wrong operation principle for a two channel missile (Stinger), but the author is a Military academy professor that does these things for a living?
Or…
Or…
Or…
Yeah, too bad we’re talking about release/jettison envelope.
This is the graphic for the Rhino:
It was simulated to let go a Mk84 up to M1.6…the same way the PW4 gets released now in game.
Why PW4 can and Mk84 can’t?
Are there photographs of a Rhino with 6 HARMs, or Su-whatever with however many 38MTs it can carry in game?
whataboutism
someone is salty
5 Likes
Has it been bug reported?
Your days are numbered.
1 Like
I know what number it is
A report is submitted and under consideration to increase the number of HARM missiles on the Eurofighter. Hopefully it will be implemented.
IIRC there’s no conclusive evidence on ECRS Mk1, as Hendsolt repeatedly stated +/-90°, and their documents are more recent and / or more specific than other sources.
By all means submit a properly sourced bug report instead of whining at me on the forum
I don’t really see what you think you are proving? You asked what they based the current implementation on, I told you. You can point to other things you think are wrong, but that does not change the answer to the question of why Gaijin modelled Paveway IV the way they did.
Gaijin get stuff wrong sometimes that’s what big reports are for.
Really? You could have fooled me:
“Limit the plane’s speed”? Sure sounds like you are talking about carriage limitations.
Cool, submit a properly sourced bug report.
Because multiple reliable sources were made available to the developers showing that Supersonic PW4 operation was planned / possible (with literally no evidence to the contrary), so they implemented it in accordance with the information which was available at the time.
IIRC there are export brochures available for most soviet aircraft. Which show them able to carry as many kh38s as they have in game. Obviously there is now debate over whether the Kh-38MT version specifically progressed to a functional missile, but literally no one realised that was the case until well over a year after it was added, by which point it was too late to remove it.
2 Likes
It can, as in this photo the HARMs are being carried on the 2 outer wing pylons. While the inner ones are carrying fuel tanks in this photo, HARMs can be carried there as well.
Source: EA-18G Growlers Appear to Be Flying Over Iran with Four Anti-Radiation Missiles - The Aviationist
FoV, not FoR.
INDRA’s (OEM) video is inconclusive evidence?
Btw, ECRS2 with FoR 200°, doesn’t actually see (FoV) all those 200° that it does in game, neither.
Oh, it’s been reported 10 months ago, just like any other listed item and many more…
I know, sadly…anyway, the problem isn’t Rhino in particular or PW4 in particular, but the whole system which is inconsistent. As I said, you can have PW4 supersonic (yellow envelope), but then you also need to allow Mk84s to be released supersonic. If not and you use green envelope, everybody stays subsonic.
It’s not a rocket science. Just application of the rules equally for all.
Then I’m sure you’ll find a picture for that.
USAF says Tornado carries GBU32, pilots say they carry 2klb GBUs on wing pylons, but there’s no picture.
We should have some kinda consistency, shouldn’t we?
1 Like