CAPTOR-M (based upon the Blue Vixen) for Tranche 1 and 2. CAPTOR-E (basically AESA) Tranche 3. I think
The actual reaction and control surfaces for Su-33 aren’t much help. Canards would be great…if it was on Su27. Not Su-33s navalised structure and added weight
captor m and e are the same. They first were the E and then were renamed to MK1 and MK 2 depending on where the project was going, but tranche 1 euros started with captor c
Is CAPTOR-M not the mechanical radar, with CAPTOR-E being the electronic AESA radar?
seems to be same package that make the MK together, not to sure, but those still in development
fireball himself says captor c start as well @Morvran @Mytho61734
Mig-29OVT testbed for Mig-35 had thrust vectoring apparently. Should have the improved 35 avionics and the TVC.
the mig 35 has tvc?
No the Mig-29OVT had TVC as a testbed for the 35, it was dropped due to costs (unsurprisingly) as funds were then re-diverted to the SU-57 programme.
No weapons or avionics integration and a demonstrator, similar vein to the BAe EAP, I know the suggestion is up, but I can’t be bothered arguing it, i’ll let people have their hype but if it comes, I will have my EAP.
1 word Yak141
Didn’t work, already tried that argument. The Su-47 is very much the same vein as the EAP though. Anyway back on-topic before I get myself worked up.
I just want my Maple F-18 in the UK tree. That’s all I’m hoping for in the sort term.
(I do have the tree hopes for long term)
ok another F-111K , never finished, but the suggestion was forwarded to devs
These aircraft are slightly different. The way Gaijin seems to stand is that aircraft intended to go into service and selected but then later cancelled before being brought up to combat standard can receive theoretical implementation and loadouts, such as the F-111K, Yak-141, swift F.7, Horten etc.
Whereas aircraft never officially slated for service which also didn’t carry military specific avionics or weapons are currently not applicable, that would apply to things like the EAP and SU-47. The difference is that the SU-47 post got past moderation on both old and new forum, with far less sources, pictures, explanation etcetera whilst EAP didn’t even get to being approved in the suggestions category (despite being equally as valid), but regardless I digress.
F111k was intended to be used whereas the EAP from what we know never was
You might be thinking of the proposed upgrades to T1’s with AESA, Meteor, IRST etc, which were cancelled and the aircraft sent for parts (and not replaced with either F-35 or T4 eurofighters or any low cost aircraft because the MoD likes to think smart :))
I feel like i’ve stated this more time than I’ve told my girlfriend I love her at this stage, but BAE’s EAP has no wiring for firing missiles. It mounted dummy weapon stations to capture aerodynamic drag profiles that can be used to optimise the final EFT design.
It never was a combat jet, or had the capabilities of one. It was never planned to be, either. It was simply designed to take off and land.
YAK-141 and F-16AJ at least was designed to fight. EAP is more of a civilian plane
Maybe i remember seeing somewhere that they waited to get AESA on the EFT be i could be miss remembering
Out of curiosity have you read my updated post?