Noticed another issue TGP wont keep targets locked with the lock moving frequently.
And we no longer have a time to impact for the Paveway bombs? I was sure on Gripen and Harrier we have a time to impact we no longer have that on Typhoon (or I don’t)
Just tested in test flight Harrier has Time to impact Typhoon doesn’t for the Paveway IV
when using radar elevation axis - it kinda flips sometimes
Or alternatively they accidentally ran with errant information in some marketing materials.
No amount of vortex generators or slats (it has leading edge flap, not slats) will prevent flow detachment over the wing at 50 degrees AoA. Even the MiG-29 or Su-27 types begin to have total flow detachment at only 35-40 degrees and they are far better suited for such flight conditions.
I’ve already declared it is underperforming in radar, sustained turn, maximum overload.
Is it wrong to challenge what I’m reading or should I be spoonfed marketing material and swallow it as genuinely unbiased wholesale propaganda?
You know very well I wouldn’t have but if building strawmen is the only way to defend the plane it goes a long way to show how biased the this thread has become. You couldn’t take an objective look at the thing if your life depended on it.
Majority of airframes in the game don’t exceed the laws of physics this flagrantly on a regular basis.
Perpetrated by the British MOD against Europe - should have gone with AESA from the start.
That’s pretty funny, reminds me of another thing; the Eurofighter RCS is too large currently as well and needs to be reduced to “1/4 the Tornado RCS” according to the documents Flame provided. From what they’ve told me it should be 5-9m2 depending on models and thus Eurofighter should be 1.25 - 2 m2 RCS.
I believe the target was at least 1/4 the RCS of Tornado I believe that was also a response to you quoting the Rafale’s target of ‘less than a sparrow’. There is a report in here; by Flame himself suggesting <1 m^2 even when in an interceptor configuration.
You’re being very selective
How am I being selective, if Flame is suggesting less than 1m2 I am sure he has found information suggesting it should be so. From the last time I spoke with him on discord I was informed the Tornado could be around 5-6m2 and 1/4 of that is indeed ~1.25m2 so what is selective about that?
You can’t even listen to me suggesting a buff without complaining?
At the time AESA was in it’s infancy, it definitely should have an AESA radar by now though.
Regardless of what you think of CAPTOR-M the British MOD saved Europe from a far greater crime. The Germans wanted to use the MSD2000 (a beefed up AN/APG-65) - or even just a regular AN/APG-65 - which would have been a far worse radar. The MOD had to put up a multi-year fight to get the Germans to finally back down from that.
It was a conscious decision to make a best in class mechanical scan radar, which could be upgraded to AESA at a later date. Even if it wasn’t though, there is not a hope in hell that the Germans would have accepted an AESA radar initially, so you can’t pin this one on the British.
It is a little sad how long it has taken the AESA upgrade to come to fruition, but that’s politics for you.
I also told you that the RCS requirement was to be <1m2 while carrying 6 missiles, and that testing indicated the requirement would be met.
EAP was being conceptualised in the 1980s - so presumably we can add ‘lacking TIME TRAVEL capabilities’ to his long list of ills with the Typhoon.
Because he responded to you in one of these threads and told you <1m^2. You have been being selective for a number of days, and no I do not believe in the gangups against you most of the time because as I have mentioned several times often you bring sources.
But you keep, being, selective in this thread, and others relating to this. Take yesterday in this thread, with Britecloud:
Literally the first result when you search ‘Britecloud Eurofighter’ is this, either you chose to find one of the only sources that doesn’t mention the Eurofighter despite it literally being invented by a Eurofighter partner to which you’re well aware, or you made a mistake… and then proceeded to use it in a way which evidently would have stirred up some sort of inflamation.
The second one:
You can only plead woeful ignorance so many times.
For the record, i’ve been quietly agreeing with several of your points, but you keep doing this strange thing where you then deliberately do something inflammatory to ruin it all.
already let him know about this, idk why u post again
You said:
Unless you were referring to the Typhoon indeed being mentioned 6 or 7 paragraphs down which I assumed you weren’t.
i was referring to typhoon, just guesstimated paragraph number, shouldve posted a screenshot though
That’s fair enough, it was primarily to illustrate a point to be honest. As I said, I do personally appreciate Mig’s insights positive or negative but only when they are constructive rather than very clearly designed to irritate people.
when did they decide on radar?
1990’s. Actually more mid-80’s if you consider proposals on ACA for further derivatives of Foxhunter and BV.
I think it was 1980s to be honest. First flight was 1994 and they would’ve got the format nailed down some time before that.
I suspect they didn’t want a repeat of the old Cement Radar of the Tornado ADV…
britecloud also doesn’t need “integration” in a hardware or software sense…
not for eurofighter
not for F-18
not for F-35
hell, not even for C-130s
It’s relatively plug and play isn’t it.
Does make me wonder if its a wide spectrum decoy or if it can narrow down its jamming frequency to further target incoming missiles.
then theres really no excuse for no AESA, take this 1994 document for example
on page 8, there is the prototype F-22 radar mounted on what appears to be the testbed boeing 757 they used for R&D
on the bottom of page 7 you can see a 1978 paper on PAVE PAWS phased array radar (AESA/PESA hybrid) cited
I am somewhat surprised they didn’t use CAESAR as an interim given they could literally just attach it to the CAPTOR-M mounting and it worked relatively flawlessly as far as prototypes go.