It’s not a contradiction if the Typhoon AESA in-game isn’t meant to be representative of an operational airframe. Only the German mechanical Typhoon was meant to be representative of an operational airframe.
Fair enough, I do expect it to be operated sometime soon and for the aircraft to be programmed for addition into the game as well at some point maybe.
It’s still not representative of an operational airframe though, even though it incorporates upgrades from the Tranche 4 and what has been tested as well. Otherwise do you think we won’t see any other EFT being added anytime in the near future?
not what i said, there’s plenty of them to be added.
as for the current problem, i dont mind losing the irst.
1 Like
so dual pylons only for asraam’s ? not amraams ?
They can still carry AMRAAM.
1 Like
why does it say 6 amraams max and not 8 ?. that to only 6+2 (asraams) instead of 6+4(asraams) ? or was the MFRL pylon still in development phase when they made this document ?.
The source is from 1994.
The Typhoons entered service in 2003.
The source doesnt even mention the dual racks for the use of SRAAMs, so was likely written before they were available or considered
The source for dual rack MRAAMs comes from a cockpit simulator for the next gen of Typhoon cockpit, 30 odd years after that source.
Finally, that source is more than likely referring purely to the planned weapons fit for most scenarios, and not necessarily maximum possible loadout, 4+4 or 2+6 has been fairly standard A2A weapons fit used by the RAF
The same they’ve been doing with top tier planes for a longer time now?
Add stuff based on technical compatibility if balance ( or whatever Gaijin thinks balance is) deems it necessary like trickle feeding Spices, GBU 53s or new AIM 120s to existing airframes. And then probably add a new type of Eurofighter for example when the in game model actually needs a visual change (AMK, Arexis).
TBF, that F-15E was carrying full A2G loadout with 4 AMRAAMS but still, EFT being able to out accelerate it without after burner is very impressive
1 Like
gunjob flexing the better airframe
You are aware that the Wiki is Player written?
This section and the articles within it are written by players or volunteers
They go through moderation, but that doesn’t mean this is official information or the developers’ stance.
Additionally, all information regarding specifications below this article is automatically pulled from the game files.
2 Likes
Yes
And Yes
you can write text for Vehicles which dont have any yet, send them to the Wiki Team and if they like it it gets placed in the Wiki were everyone can see it, + you get a Decal + I believe some GE aswell
Though I’ve heard it’s an insultingly small amount and can take months to come through
(Never claimed it would be a lot ) :3
1 Like
The AMRAAM/SRAAM configuration document was the 1994 proposal for what became Tranch 1 Air Defence Role/Mission configuration.
Not only is Tranch 1 is now retired from service. It is talking about the specific mission configuration, not about the limitation of the hard points or future capability.
In other words. “For the air defence mission role, we will carry no more than 6 MRAAM/2 SRAAM or 4 MRAAM/6 SRAAM with up to 3 external fuel tanks”
4 Likes
Typhoons flight model for ground battles is not great.
You are forced to fly low so you cannot fly fast without ripping which means any degensive flying and you are dangerously slow.
Its twitchy, likes to flat spin and if it does take any damage it becomes a brick.
It becomes great in uncontested skies (which with everyone now getting a free SAM never happens) and also very good in 1 v 1 merges but most of the time a SAM will just kill you while you dogfight.
It is a goated Heli hunter but then you have to deal or avoid the SAMs to get into position.
Meta is FnF weapons and having a handful that can be easilly intercepted makes the Typhoon for CAS a poor choice
1 Like