Duh. Ask him in DMs then, I’ve seen his source and as far as I am aware, EAP had already already been retired by then, so the only jet(s) that could’ve fulfilled the requirements he’s talking about were actual EFA prototypes, i.e DA airframes.
1 Like
The issue is much more egregious in sim because the Eurofighter is even better at bridging the gap from low to high AoA fighting than the F-16 is. F-16 can pull very high AoA but it is much easier to compensate for than Eurofighter.
1 Like
It is documents on the DA series of aircraft with downrated EJ200s
None of the documents flame has used where from the EAP
No, they are not “insane”. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The only document linked has no data to speak of, just says the Eurofighter is “expected to meet” XYZ criteria or not.
The turn rate data is presumably of the EAP and not the DA1/2
He talks about weaker engine prototype, that is DA Typhoon, not EAP. And you do not see all the documents.
2 Likes
How did you decide that he was talking about the EAP? The report literally says nothing about this, in the attached source the EAP is mentioned ONCE.
1 Like
It is not i have said what the data is from
And everything is sorted
Honestly I have found them to be very underwhelming. Damage wise they’re alright, but time to target is atrocious. Any longer ranged shot will take 30+ seconds (straight up lol when you compare it to what a Su-34 or Rafale can do within those 30+ seconds), and close range (~10 seconds of flight time) shots put you in in range of basically every top tier SPAA.
Аnd one more question about the RWR. One of the features of the 4+ generation is the fusion of sensors.
Actually, the question is - can the IRL radar be aimed at a threat that the RWR has noticed? Provided that it is in the radar coverage area. As far as I remember from the presentations, the DASS determines the position of the threat in 3D space. This means that the onboard computer has information about the position of the threat and theoretically, using this information, the radar/IRST can be aimed at this threat.
The question is: can he do this or do my conclusions have little to do with reality?
Because that’s an accurate summary. No idea what planet the other guy is living on.
They’re heavily limited in range by the automatic self destruct, require laser guidance and travel slower than hellfires. The only time wherein they are good is as I said before (no pantsirs) as NATO SAMs are woeful and if there are no SAMs up at all obviously you’ve just got impunity to throw them out at close range.
Any FnF forget weaponry is far superior given you can fire off your munitions and very quickly cycle sorties. The 6x hammers of the rafale or 6x MTs of the SU-34 are far superior given you can engage from outside pantsir range and immediately go re-arm for round 2.
If you are banking on the enemy having no pantsirs up for a weapon to be good then it’s not a good weapon.
(Having checked the guys replays it all makes sense, guy is just playing squadded with someone who plays russia so the pantsirs are always on his team. Figures.)
3 Likes
You mean RB199’s? Feel free to share the documents if it’s not an issue.
What I’ve found for British requirements of a future combat aircraft at the time were as follows;
Similar to what is being shown in his report, approximately 29.5 deg/s instant turn rate at 9G and ~0.5 mach SL. Interestingly, the rest of the data aligns itself quite neatly with expected Eurofighter performance and yet the sustained turn is only 18.5 deg/s at 9G.
1 Like
No, not RB199, EJ200, but the engines were considered downrated for the performance review to account for the engines not completing development and wearables.
2 Likes
It is EJ200
There is a reason why your ramblings were removed
Should it sustain more than 9G past 1.2 mach?
The full design requirements document for the Eurofighter (known as the ESR-D) has been declassified and many copies of it can be found in archives.
Here is a summary of the turn performance requirements.
5 Likes
So it is heavily overperforming in-game at very low and at high speeds.
The excess power is incorrect as well.
Do you have an excess power report prepared?
Do you have a radar cross section reduction report prepared?
In particular, it should have 1/4 the RCS of the Tornado as I tagged you on discord with Austrian official’s claims of such being a requirement. I assume you have something on that of your own.
Not quite the the full picture, that’s just the requirements… not what EFA achieved…
3 Likes
The SEP is actually close to correct. It’s just too low at Mach 1.6/11km
I have no means of testing Specific Excess Power. I don’t personally use WTRTI, and even if I did the devs chuck out reports based on WTRTI.
It is also my understanding that the localhost data output of the game does not provide specific excess power, so that is not an option either. WTRTI apparently extrapolates SEP based information it does have (rate of climb, acceleration, etc.)
I responded on discord.