U sure? As I have seen the same table multiple times already
1 Like
This video just seems like the guy is trying to throw shade at @Gunjob and @Flame2512
Also those documents have been posted here many times
8 Likes
No it’s not, let them enjoy their ugly blackhead eurofighter. UK mains with their dumb IRST that I clearly do not want. Stupid pimple face eurofighter with it’s stupid gorgeous wings and canards and such >:(
1 Like
He is just another guy full of bad faith
not worth anyone’s time
4 Likes
I know this dude is controversial but you are also just attacking his character without actually engaging with his argument.
I am not in the loop with EF performance stats. Why is he wrong? Is the real EF better than the actual irl requirements?
There is a few things about him i can’t mention on the forums because of the weird forum rules (rule 3.8) but he has always been bad faith
the docs he is talking about in the video are requirements from 1987 years before any of the DA air craft were made and even further away from them having production engines. Documents used to do the performance of the Eurofighter come after this and thats why any attempt to nerf with these docs doesn’t work as all the requirements we meet and acceded
1 Like
He’s often defending the Su-27 and the ridiculous TVC stuff it can do and the fact it loses hardly energy.
Ohh so the stuff that would actually over stress the poor plane and cause loss of control as it has no means to maintain control after departed flight?
It seems to be a buff, but I can’t tear my eyes away from the maximum number of targets.
Especially if you keep in mind the Su-30SM with its 12 R-77-1. 12 launched R-77-1 plus the Su-30 itself is 13 targets, which is already 3 more than it can handle. And the Su-30 will know that there is a Typhoon in front of it. Because the NCTR, which was added not in the patch when the Typhoon appeared, but in the patch when the Su-30 appeared. Oh, what a coincidence.
5 Likes
where are they even sourcing these changes anymore, I thought it was common knowledge by now that the EFT has a capacity of 20 TWS targets with 6 DL channels and STT mode for 2 of them
1 Like
“Well, we buffed your target retention. So, for balance, we need to nerf the number of targets.” I think something like that.
What’s interesting is that the TWS on the Mirage 2000С is MUCH nicer than on the Typhoon.
I have had a blast with the AJ37’s 70s era TWS compared to the absolute mess on the Eurofighter, the butchering of this jet has to go down in wt history
From my understanding @Gunjob is just trying to get the CAPTOR-M to be usable at this point.
Overtly, it might be a nerf, but if thats what they need to do to make the radar usable, i guess its better than nothing.
I still find in funny though, how the radar on the both the FA2 and Gripen seem relatively fine with no major issues, and yet, a radar that should mostly be a C&P of them at this point, is a hot mess.
Whilst I do think part of it is from expectations for the CAPTOR-M and relative performance vs things like the Rafale. Something is definetly wrong.
1 Like
If they want to take the shortcut, they need to add a system similar to ESA. They will still need to create an analogue later.
The long way involves combining radar, IRST and RWR into one common attack system, which combines data on the position of all targets that they were able to detect and have the ability to attack them. And I haven’t even mentioned datalink. If snail does this before the end of NEXT year - I will be sincerely surprised.
The problem is that we have entered an era where a combat aircraft is not a unit, but a part of a complex. And they are not designed to work alone. Even their internal systems do not work separately.
I hope the snail understands that almost all 13.7+ need to rework the logic of the combat systems and the sooner it starts working, the less work there will be later. Typhoon or Rafale do not work the same way as, say, Phantom 4E.
Even phantoms had datalink lol
I mwan, realistically, the CAPTOR-M should not be anywhere near the RBE2-AA in performance, thats like 20 year tech gap. The comparable radar wouldve been the RBE2 PESA fron the earlier Rafales.
My issue is that the CAPTOR-M isnt i the ballpark of the VOO4 from the SU-34, which is from the same time period, a first gen ESA, which is what the CAPTOR-M and PS-05/A SHOULD be by literally all accounts.
Su-34 radar is coming off of decades of Russian experience with PESA radars. It should be better than the CAPTOR-M, since it is not a first gen PESA
I mean i could be wrong but VOO4 is still considered a first gen PESA. iirc its from the 90’s.
Edit: its from the 90’s, same time period as CAPTOR-M, and tho the soviets did have earlier ESA’s, its generally agreed they had inferior radars to western ones regardless.
And MiG-31 PESA radar is from the 70’s. If it was AESA, maybe, but PESA was fairly mature by then.
1 Like