Lul, was an try worth
Hopefully they will deliver the change for the outer pylon which is already Fixed on the UK and ITA one, just the DE needs the fix now…
1 Like
Why not all?
As far as I remember Smin said that these changes are planned to be part of this update. By “this” update he meant 2.43 or 2.45?
No it was designed from the very beginning as a multi-role aircraft. As I originally posted the British requirement called for good ground attack capability. The initial joint European requirement that started the project also called for ground attack capability:
Spoiler
And then the contractually binding development requirements specified a list of air to surface weapons that must be carried:
Spoiler
RAF documents from the early 90s also show planned multi-role loadouts:
Spoiler
I can dig up more documents throughout the entire timeline of the Eurofighter programme mentioning air-to-ground capability, it has always been a part of the programme, not some sort of after thought.
If you can’t work out that there is a difference between the aircraft not having a gun, and the aircraft having a fully functional gun which the RAF chose not to buy any ammo for as a policy decision then I really don’t know what to say.
Just like the Rafale the earliest Eurofighters didn’t have ground attack capability in order to get them into service quicker. Block 1 Eurofighters were all two seat pilot training aircraft so didn’t need air-to-ground capability, and Block 2 Eurofighters were delivered in order to get basic air-defence capability as quickly as possible. Block 5 aircraft (there was no Block 3 or 4) were then introduced with ground attack capability.
9 Likes
Program started in 1983 and suppose to be Air Superiority fighter, only after 1989 requirements for multirole capabilities came to light.
Same Chally 2 incident.
Yeah it took only 10 years for them to realize they can use it as for multirole fighter which brings us to start.
The gun wasnt operational for 2 years as Gunjob said which means first operational Typhoons didnt had any CQC or CAS capabilities with that gun which basically having no gun at that rate.
Now sure RAF pilots statements caused a ‘‘not having gun’’ myth but either way its practically same, like it or not.
Gee i wonder why it took so long to implement Ground attack capabilities to EFT family…
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The first image in that post is from 1983 (as I said it is from the document that formally started the project). Also, for someone who was demanding sources earlier today, I’m noticing a distinct lack of them in your comments…
If you are just going to refuse to accept everything I provide sources for, then at least provide some evidence to back your view up. Otherwise there really isn’t much point in continuing this conversation.
No idea what you’re referring to.
12 Likes
First image is from UK Mod that is one of their requirements for EFT project, doesnt mean it was designed to be multirole from the beginning, also lacking exact date on that information doesnt prove that its coming from 1983.
Yeah you’re posting documents that has no exact date but refers to requirements for EFT’s capabilities.
As someone who interested in British vehicles its funny to see that you have no idea about this.
Let me explain, when Challenger 2 development began UK Mod required significant improvements over Chally1 and set a bar for designers, but in the end it barely met and couldnt exceed their expectations hence why current Challenger 2’s hull armor is actually overperforming in this game.
Which way is the Challenger 2 hull overperforming in game?
I’m sure you have actual unrestricted documents you can share?
Or is the usual “trust me bro”
Its already posted on Challenger 2 thread and explained countless times.
Feel free to check it whenever you want.
i mean, gajin still uses the 30 year old swedish armor trials for a lot of very new vehicles as well, it isnt to far fetched they would go low and use that document as well
The argument is if EFT was designed from the start with A2G in mind, Panther’s position is it wasn’t. Reality is it was.
8 Likes
ah confusion on my site, i was thouhgt u responded to the chally armor thing he said
1 Like
This is so painfull to read.
2 Likes
thats a clear marketing uhhhh i mean bureaucracy lie
7 Likes
Why are you bringing up the Challenger 2 in the Eurofighter thread anyways.
The image I posted back in the Rafale thread was from the British AST 414 requirements document dated March 1984.
The first image I posted in this thread was from the European requirements document personally signed by the Chief of Air Staff for each nation, and dated December 1983.
And here’s the design requirements from 1987 (after France dropped out), nearly the exact same wording has been retained as in the 1983 requirements document.
So an air to ground capability was part of the British requirements, it was part of the original European requirements (with France in the programme), it was part of the 1987 requirements (without France in the programme). Oh and for good measure the text remains unchanged in the updated 1993 requirements:
So I suggest you either accept that an air to ground capability was part of the Eurofighter programme from the very beginning, and remained so throughout development, or start providing some sort of evidence to the contrary.
Let’s start with this:
Where does your date of 1989 come from? As a reminder you’re the one who was demanding sources from everyone earlier, but have so far not provided any yourself.
11 Likes
So guys, I still haven’t dropped my attempts to find a 8x AMRAAM photo of Typhoon. Whatever you say - it’s pretty evident that asphalt slopfail has no competition because of 8x Michles. Soo, I’ve tried gaslighting GPT into thinking that Eurofighter can carry 8x AMRAAMs and then asking it to guide me to that photo - no success. However, I got some interesting answers from the new chinese NN and they’re much more clear, unfrotunately it’s unable to guide me to the photo directly through the link or something like that. Nevertheless, I got some clues and been looking them up yesterday, so maybe someone can help me with that.
Spoiler
It’s quite possible that it’s confusing ASRAAMs and AMRAAMs or hallucinating all together. But it’s the biggest clue I got so far, outside the schematics. If you’re feeling adventurous - you’re welcome on board.
How are you this good at cinematic screenshots lmao
1 Like