Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion

[MiG_23M]

@Rileyy3437

I meant rivalled in dogfight performance, as far as i’m concerned its going to beat everything up until the F-22 if they add it according to the real stats.

Without the add-on aerodynamic kit it was my understanding that it beat things in regards to sustained turns and energy retention from a higher speed. The F-14 is already quite good at showing why that isn’t the be-all-end-all where you’ll just eat an R-73 or other IRCCM missile with your butt cheeks.

@Rileyy3437

No American 4.5th gen has an internal towed jammer they must sacrifice a hardpoint instead, the F-35 has an internal one made by the same British company that makes the Eurofighter ones.

Yet these systems generally work just as well and the American aircraft tend to carry more pylons and ordnance than the British ones anyway… minus the stealth fighter which actually has a reason for internally mounting such equipment.

@Rileyy3437

As for MAWS it’s still top of the ring, virtually no US aircraft have MAWS, for example the EX lacks it (but retains the blisters) Eurofighter has PIMAWS which is UV+IR in addition to 3 AESA MAWS antennae, I’m not an RWR guy so I don’t know about that besides Eurofighter’s sensor fusion being very good, probably up there with F-35. I don’t think they’ll model that though.

Most US equipment has had MAWS for some time now, it’s just RWR based maws. The American aircraft pretty much lose close-in fights handily going forward unless you’re talking about the F/A-18C with GE-402 engines. The rest of them aren’t jamming the WEZ with any ease. In other words, there is no need for IR based MAWS on just about any of them unless they fix the performance issues with the seeker on the R-27T/ET or if the MICA-IR is added.

@Rileyy3437

AMRAAM’s don’t have AESA seekers so they can be fooled, nothing until AIM-120D has datalink so its not about fooling the aircraft’s radar but about fooling he missile seeker.

Every AIM-120 has datalink, the AIM-120D has a two-way datalink but that doesn’t mean the other missiles can’t be supported through electronic warfare by datalink information from the launch platforms radar. The EFT will surely be effective in dogfights in-game if Gaijin adds it akin to the way they added the Gripen.

@Rileyy3437

I also don’t think the Typhoon should fight F-22’s at all.

So it begins, everyone says the Typhoon is analogue to the F-22 and when push comes to shove and it’s time for it to show up to the game y’all switch your stance? Now it’s unfair?? Now it’s inferior?

@Rileyy3437

There is a reason the F-22 project was twice as expensive to develop, as such only 5th gen’s should fight other 5th gens.

You have all the cool electronic warfare to counter AMRAAM’s and the fancy IRST to spot stealth fighters. What happened to the ASRAAM being so potent? What happened to beating the F-22 WVR? You serious? Now it can’t hold a candle?

[Gbghgs]

Eurofighters with PIRATE are arguably the best 4th gen to fight 5th gen’s like the raptor. The whole point of that system was to counter stealth aircraft. Leaving everything else aside, eurofighter variants and the f-35 are all thats left really for the UK/ITA/GER.

Unless you want cookie cutter lobbies of F-35/F-22/J-20/SU-57 then you’ve gotta include the 4.5 Gen airframes. I’d expect there to be a fair bit of overlap just to keep up player counts.

[tripod2008]

@Rileyy3437

No American 4.5th gen has an internal towed jammer they must sacrifice a hardpoint instead

The ALE-50 fits in dedicated faring on the wing, which don’t take the place of regular stores.

Image of the Faring in question

Or are integrated into modern variants of some ECM pods (e.g. ALQ-184(V)9) that provide the capability to older airframes.

Also the ALE-55 is also a thing for some F/A-18 & F-35 variants.

@Rileyy3437

virtually no US aircraft have MAWS

Depends on which you mean, The PIDS+ pylon adapter will provide that capability to Some F-16’s

Excerpts for the PIDSU Family of Adapters

The report for its addition to the US F-16C has been accepted.

Also the “PoBiT” F-16 (F-16V) is also a thing so there is the potential for a less abrupt jump from F-16C-50 / F-15E > F-15EX > F-22 / F-35.

---

Brits seem to think that the F-15 was equipt with some form of MAW (ALQ-127) But I can’t find much out about it, only that said system was used on the E-3 & later B-52s, and it was upgraded and redesignated as the ALQ-153 (?Solid state?).

Though the ALQ-153 (not the ALQ-135, which is an ECM pod also carried by the F-15), is also fitted to some variants of the ALQ-131 & -184, which again is carried by various Teen series airframes, but will likely depend on the specific nation in question for carriage due to availability, but would explain why it was listed as such.

@Rileyy3437

AESA seekers so they can be fooled

The inverse is not necessarily true, it’s just that its resistant to the methods that are preferentially used for other types of seekers, the same way monopulse seeker are resistant to techniques used against Conical scanning types, which again are resistant to techniques used against Cassegrain antenna, etc.

Sure there is a lot of things that you could do with reprogrammable digital hardware, a datalink and the prospective ability to zone T/R elements to effectively perform TWS via TVM methods to disambiguate contacts into decoys and targets, that make things a nightmare for a defensive system, but it’s not inherent to the Seeker itself, it also makes said missiles very costly to produce and so if you could get away with something less performant but available in significantly greater numbers there is a tradeoff to be had.

@Rileyy3437

There is a reason the F-22 project was twice as expensive to develop

Just use the IRSTS and dumpster it at a distance, Stealth only works so well especially if supersonic (and necessitates no external stores, and internal carriage limits constrains magazine depth significantly, which can be taken advantage of during BVR with care if you can successfully bait launches), and besides it’s not likely to receive the " Plus 5" motor " (-120C-5 & later) variants without counterparts for other nations, and the standard AIM-9M / Basic AIM-9X should form a solid baseline of performance for SRMs and really aren’t that good since they still only have 30G’s and no TVM, and seeker performance is similar to the ASRAAM (the relative advantages they would theoretically bring to the table aren’t relevant in War Thunder). Which again outside of the IRCCM, and Smokeless motor don’t actually improve on the kinematic performance of the AIM-9L, and arguably the range of the AIM-9D since the performance specs are similar; which we know is erroneous, but is waiting on Gaijin to action said reports;

• AIM-9M lock range too low
• AIM-9M missing IRCCM features

The lack of a a HMD (unless we get a Block 20, in a trialed configuration, which if will significantly constrains A2G loadouts, due to no BRU-61 (used for GBU-39 & -53)) will further cause acquisition issues post merge.

Example F-22 Stores Loading Chart

@Rileyy3437

For UV this isn’t true after the motor burns out

Yes it is, if the sun is up you get skin returns that form a contrast, and Blackbody ration due to said supersonic flight due to Wien’s displacement means that its a tiny fraction of the energy but considering we know that Sensors can detect changes less than .25 degrees kelvin, the contrast should be noticeable, and that’s all a imaging senor needs We know that the FIM-92 for example can detect out to at least out to ~6.5km.

[Godvana]

@MiG_23M

Most US equipment has had MAWS for some time now, it’s just RWR based maws.

That’s pretty much any modern RWR. It won’t alert to IR, passive radar homing, or missiles with radars that fall out of the RWR band detection though.

[MiG_23M]

J-35
TF Kaan
Su-75
KF-21
F/A-18E block 3
Rafale variants
Gripen-E

There are many low observable or even VLO airframes you are leaving out… but yes most countries will have an F-35 variant and nothing will change. It is how it is now with F-15, F-16, Su-27, Mirage 2000

[Flame2512]

@Spychicken

Is there any info on the towed decoys? What variants carried it? How effective would they be?

The TRDs should be highly effective. It basically makes it near impossible for home on jam mode missiles to hit the aircraft as the thing doing the jamming is 100 m behind the aircraft.

I did find one memo discussing trials of a prototype TRD on the Tornado in the United States. Apparently if you deployed chaff while using the TRD the missile miss distances it generated were “remarkable”. The British engineers seemed to think it was nothing short of a revolution in electronic warfare technology and the Americans were apparently also impressed.

With the Eurofighter’s TRD being newer, and not a prototype it would presumably be very effective.

[Spychicken]

Interesting, I guess its up to gaijin if they want to add jammers to the game. It would be cool if they were so good it forces more of a wvr meta again although jammer effectiveness to different radars would probably be complete guesswork. Is there any information on if the jammers get destroyed easily by nearby missile detonations?

[Morvran]

On reheat, I think they are a tad thirsty. But, unlike the F3,.you can supercruise in a typhoon

[AlvisWisla]

More efficient than Mirage 2000. At least as efficient as the F-404 engine.

[tripod2008]

@Spychicken

Jammer effectiveness to different radars would probably be complete guesswork.

Not entirely, since radiated power can be found for a lot of the common systems, & radars / jammers, and that since power falloff obeys the inverse square law, finding “burn though” ranges is pretty easy as long as reasonable simplifications are made (e.g. assuming jammer uses an isotropic antenna, etc. ).

So in short Jammers have a minimum range where they are effective, and so they can still be shot down by missiles using SARH guidance, just at a much reduced range.

The problem is when you get into the interactions between systems and their specific capabilities, since we don’t have anything resembling similar depths for all potential candidate systems;

An Example.

For example would the SPS-141 (as carried by a number of Soviet & exported airframes) still defeat the AIM-7M or Skyflash.
We know that it is effective against the AIM-7D & -E, maybe -7F & AIM-54A (if you trust Iraqi claims) as they all use conical scan seekers but I don’t have hard data for the latter. But the Missiles in question use Mono-pulse seekers, which is known to be resistant to waveforms that target Conical scan seekers, so should resist it, but I don’t have anything on Technique Generators (for obvious reasons), or if it was ever modernized or was modular in any way so could be made effective, also to which revision are the configurations modeled in game held to.

The is also a further question about the interaction between the APG-65 (and Other radars that use Pulse-Doppler Illumination methods, and again which configuration has access to what) and Sparrows since the radar doesn’t change it’s waveform when guiding a missile, from that of track, so they would need to be cautious about emission control.

Further questions about how to model the Jammer’s interference are also worth refining, as their actual impact can range from degraded guidance to a complete inability to launch on a target due to the interference, let alone relaying that to the player and further questions of if Home On Jam should be modeled for Systems that have said capabilities are also worth answering.

I think much of the work needs to go towards a novel implementation for the mid and high tier Bombers & Strike Airframes to improve their survivability, While restricting the EW capabilities to only those against Airborne threats at first (since A2G capability has significant further implications on Ground mode’s Balance)

[Firestarter]

@tripod2008

The problem is when you get into the interactions between systems and their specific capabilities, since we don’t have anything resembling similar depths for all potential candidate systems;

There are certain systems we know can be jammed by Sky Shadow (or whatever it is that was used with BOZ-107) on the GR.1, that would be our starting point

[BalticSAS]

Anyone got any images of the HUD shown inside the striker helmets?

[tripod2008]

@Firestarter__

that would be our starting point

A lot is also known about Vietnam era systems and pods, One thing that I’ve noticed is that they eventually start describing numeric “range bands”, in place of directly providing the absolute frequency ranges and finding a description for each one specifically to allow the bands to be converted back to a frequency range, and then into (either New or Old, NATO standard (pre/post JC/MF agreement) letter bands), has proven to be difficult, especially for more modern pods, for example “Range band 3.5+”, what does that mean?

What I’ve found so far indicates(New NATO);

• Band 1—64 to 150 MHz (VHF communications)
• Band 2—150 to 270 MHz (A band)
• Band 3—270 to 500 MHz (B band)
• Band 4—0.5 to 1 GHz (C band)
• Band 5/6—1 to 2.5 GHz (D though lower E bands)
• Band 7—2.5 to 4 GHz ( Rest of E though G)
• Band 8—4 to 7.8 GHz (most of the G- and H-bands)
• Band 9—7.8 to 11 GHz (upper H-, I-, and lower J-bands)
• Band 10—11 to 20 GHz (Rest of J band)

As many pods are modular and have a significant number of configurations, it can get confusing, also much of the job of the pods seems to be disrupting automatic datalinks & Radio communications systems, not degrading the performance of Systems relevant to War Thunder, so exactly how useful some pods would actually be is questionable since DFM capabilities is relatively recent in terms of additions to the game.

I’ve also go Brochures for the ALQ-87, -101, -119, -131, which covers most US podded families, since many systems are just updated or revised versions of said pods.

[MythicPi]

HMD HUD from the DCS Eurofighter trailer, with said Eurofighter mod being made by a group of ex-EFT pilots and engineers.

Not sure if this is the right one, but id assume its accurate considering their specific background.

[Faster_Boiiiii]

same specific fuel consumption as an F-404 just that it can produce more overall thrust (= higher fuel consumption).
but at the same power its the same consumption.
its actually more efficient than the F414

is good engine yknow

and you also have low supersonic drag so supercruising isnt hard

[HakwHunt]

Deltawings go brrrrrr

[Catnip007]

Pilot opinions (while cool) are notoriously unreliable

[oppsijustkilledu]

Cant wait for inevitable butchered eurofighter FM because lack of data and no one being able to bug report it. The super cruise speed is going to be one of those that will be big issue point

[Flame2512]

@oppsijustkilledu

Cant wait for inevitable butchered eurofighter FM because lack of data and no one being able to bug report it.

I found enough things in the archive that I doubt it will be an issue.

@oppsijustkilledu

The super cruise speed is going to be one of those that will be big issue point

There are two manufacturers websites saying Mach 1.5 supercruise. So hopefully that is enough.

[Rileyy3437]

You should be able to get at least mach 1.3 in an interceptor configuration, mach 1.5 was mentioned twice at least but ive never seen the loadout specified.