Right, but at some point we need to acknowledge the marketing lies that the Eurofighter consortium has used to bid their aircraft. Too many countries are suggesting they can supercruise - yet their fighters require full mil thrust to barely surpass the wave drag boundary around ~1.3 mach.
True supercruise is achieved by aircraft like the F-22 which can mil thrust cruise up to 1.82 mach and when they want to supercruise… simply pull the throttle back to cruise setting and enjoy the lower drag boundary at 1.5 mach.
No, at the time I had last posted 400+ comments before the thread was closed. Quite literally this same group including you, dotShini, and others were the culprits. You know better.
Does the DASS use missile seekers as a part of the sensor suite?
Legacy would imply technology that is outdated but hard to replace because it is widespread, so I suppose you’re right. It’s not legacy, just obsolete.
I didn’t refer to them as professionals, I said that in an official position you should have a more professional demeanor. That would imply following the rules such as not posting memes on the forum.
I already explained my position.
I think I made a proper point, or am I wrong to have the opinion that their “sensor fusion” is just a marketing ploy on their part? It cannot match the performance of the systems on the Rafale - which truly fuse the sensors and allow them to communicate with themselves. The Eurofighter simply takes all of the information and combines it on a display. The trouble is an error in understanding and a difference in definition.
Right, so combining sensor information onto the display is being coalesced as “sensor fusion” (it is simply data fusion). The reality is that the Eurofighter’s “sensor fusion” is no better than the Mirage 2000’s data fusion.
please post a source about this, i have always thought it could do 1.8 on mil power when its tuned up to 102% wartime power, but now you say this and i want to know where you got it from
The problem is you and your half knowledge of stuff. Only cause you like it doesnt make the other version not a sensor fusion.
They might be 2 variants but doesnt mean the other one is weong cause of that.
You need to look for the correct term of what u wanna describe instead of claiming the otherbstuff is wrong
I suggest a new forum game for any thread related to Eurofighter Typhoon. Any time the words “marketing lie” are said you have to drink a shot of your preferred alcoholic beverage. Whoever manages to survive the longest with a functional liver wins.
I have said nothing on this and do not have information enough to discuss, from the VERY limited knowledge i have it at first glance sounds like a definition issue of the word “supercruise”. but honestly, that wasn’t what the discussion was about.
If ity takes information from more than one sensor, compiles it in a separate processor before presentation to the pilot that is the literal definition of sensor fusion. Heck, its enough to have the information from a ground radar sent through datalink and compared to what the aircrafts radar sees to make a more accurate pinpoint of a target to be able to call it sensor fusion.
I think you are confusing things here, data fusion is when you take several datapoints from the same sensor to make a more coherent average (think like a tank firing three rounds at a target and measuring an average “center” of aim or firing hundreds of shots to get a more accurate “center” of aim). sensor fusion is when you do exactly the same but with two different sensors. the sensors can even be of the same type (like shooting at a target with several different barrels to get an average of the precision of the gun). The two can even be combined for even better accuracy of average of all data inputs.
