This whole discussion does beg the question tho where is the line on what certain EFTs get and what not. Were sharing AMK, were sharing brimstones, were sharing SPICE 250. Were not sharing the radar. Will we share IRIS T and ASRAAM. Like where is the line between testing, fielding ordering and funding?
Maybe im out of date but iirc the Bundestag approved Striker II financing in November 2024
Ive genuinely not looked, it would make sense with any of the T5s and the new cockpit without a HUD… But ive also not seen anyone mention it either
There is a line between Asymmetry vs imbalance
AMK vs non-AMK is major (if it was truly Germany only, then it probably wouldnt be added, at least not at this time and it would be a higher BR accordingly)
Brimstones vs No Brimstones is major (especially if they ever get properly added)
Spice-250 vs no Spice-250 is major (in the absence of any other FnF option, spice-250 vs spear-glide for example would be asymmetry not imbalance)
But IRIS-T vs ASRAAM? Both have strengths and weaknesses, it creates differences in how the aircraft performs but is equal and opposite. Not one sided. The equivalent to the above 3 would be Britain getting ASRAAM whilst leaving Italy and Germany with Aim-9Ms, that would be unbalanced, not asymmetrical.
But Mk1 vs Mk2 is just minor and in the long run might devolve into genuine asymmetry, with Germany getting AREXIS and Italy and Britain getting eDASS.
The defence investment plan has not be published yet. It seems to be delayed at the moment.
Ah right, I was getting it confused with the previous one then
Thank you
I generally agree with that comment however my problem is that theres a fine line between asymmetrie and imbalance. And said line is very subjective depending on the player and the state of the game.
You might say that a 10 degree difference is a minor difference and if were only talking about EFT vs EFT then i might even slightly agree with you however theres now a plane with 120 degrees and a 30 degree difference is big.
My entire problem with this whole situation is just that making everything the same is the easiest, most objective and fairest way to create balance and Gaijin is actively doing that this update for everything except this radar.
and the most boring.
Nothing has been more dull this past year, especially the first 3 months of the year in ASB where it was Typhoon vs Typhoon cosntantly. 100% identical in most respects that matter. Back then the IRST was useless, would actually be a worthwhile thing to mention these days, but wasnt back then
The last thing I want is fighting a mirror image. Its boring. Its not much yet, but it might be more in the future.
Well thats very easy to say for the side thats currently “winning”
I don’t speak German but as far as I can tell from this the name used for the type rating is EF2000:
Source (page 41 & 42 in the PDF)
It seems there really isn’t much consistency with what German calls it.
Just as wirh everything)))
1 year everything gets an extra spacing example: DM 53, another year its back to DM53
Stop saying that it is “minor”, it isn´t minor.
That difference is situated just in the notch window, I would agree if it where like 220 vs 240 degrees, but it isn´t.
Radar FOV is its field of scanning without physically being moved.
FOR includes the field of scanning when movement is accounted for.
That’s how I understand it.
(Only for AESA and PESA)
Can’t wait to see British mains next year arguing that Tranche 4 and 5 should also be added to UK since UK “might” purchase them in the future when the update for Tranche 4 and 5, Su-35, F-15EX, J-16 comes out.
It is physically impossible for an ESA radar (PESA or AESA) to scan a +/-90° area. Also if the radar somehow could scan +/-90° without moving that means the repositioner would only have to tilt it 10° to get to +/-100°, but the radar is clearly tilted more than that.
So in all likelihood hensoldt is referring to the FOR on their website.
we have physical video and photographic evidence that the hensoldt radar clearly tilts more than 10 degrees
the mk2 apparently has a -+75 degree FOV, which i assume needs at least a repositioner that tilts at around 25 degrees
id say its pretty similar… if not exact
Yes, which as I said means the electronic scanning FoV of the ECRS Mk.1 is not +/-90°. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that Hensoldt are referring to the field of regard when they give the +/-90° figure.
Imo its neither.
The FOV being listed as 90 is wrong since they build upon the same ecrs 0.
Since theyre already using the wrong terminology, it isnt that much of a stretch.
A 75 degree fov from ecrs 0 and 2 would naturally be expected on the 1 as well.
I’m only thinking that mk1 has the same limits.
Wheel of fortune?
