F-15 tech demonstrater, made to be stealthier (hence only detecting it at 12km out)
1 Like
Ha ha sorry that was wasted on me! Could be a B-52 and the Typhoon Radar would still be trying to lock the ghosts from the aether!
Take the 5 out, and that’s what the CAPTOR-M is seeing
I usually don’t have many issues with DLing AMRAAMs onto their targets as I am not trying to maintain a softlock on one target. If the enemies are retarded, they’ll eat a missile for their troubles.
It’s the ACM locks and acquiring hard locks that I struggle with as well like you said.
For some fucking reason, if it’s a missile or chaff the radar would prefer to lock onto that as opposed to the moving 10 T+ plane being very non mindful towards me.
But aren’t Blue Vixen, PS-05 and Captor the same thing in game right now?
No they have a weird hybrid version of the Blue Vixen as Captur. The Gripen has a 19km TWS scan mode the Typhoon doesn’t
Gripen Radar while not great is far more reliable.
100% had a Su-27 in full tennis court mode and couldn’t lock it, had to use the HMD to hard lock it and by that time the closure rate was so high the missile wouldn’t have hit.
(could have gone for guns but I had a Rafale to my left closing)
why IRST search works so weird by pitch axis?
what do you mean?
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
1 Like
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.
6 Likes
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.
10 Likes
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.