No - because hte Yak-141 WAS intended to be a combat aircraft, with actual armament - even tho’ it never was.
The EAP was not.
To add right there -
It never was in service, because of the lack of founding due to the USSR was broken down.
But the Yak got its clear defined role, finished its development and was ready to build for service.
Edit because of autocorrect…
1 Like
It never was because due to the collapse of the Soviet Union they had to cut many projects; Yakovlev for instance entered in a partnerships with Lockheed-Martin to help fund the program.
as @HoFFI02 also replied
1 Like
I’m all for it to fill Gaps for nations that lack vehicles. Japan for an example, would truly give Japan a better fighting chance. Am aware a lot of people dislike the idea of having fantasy tanks, but this nation is one that suffers a lot from it. The other big nations built so many experimental vehicles and such that the idea of giving them a paper vehicle is not needed, they have a lot of existing options. Would love to see J7W2, Ki-91 Bomber, Chi-Se Tank, Ta-Se SPAAG, rest of the Ho-Ri series, some more TDs and so on. A lot of guess work, so may just take longer to implement which I’m ok on waiting on and am sure others are as well. Sucks not being able to have proper line ups in Japan.
1 Like
Testing yes but i think it should still come
Here some info
I can fully understand where you are coming from as well is i fully understand why the EAP is wanted by some for the UK tree…
But take step back and look at it from another angle:
You (for example) want something experimental (made up in my words) just to fill gaps on minor nations. Again, i can understand it.
But with opening this can of worms, what’s hindering the bigger nations to get their experimental and made up tech too?
Everyone will find a scribbled tissue paper with anything ridiculous right after that and want it to be implemented too.
That’s the situation we have in Wot for years, and again, it shows.
How is it made up its real the only problem with is it weapons but if info is found it had versions designed or considered to carry weapons then it should be added
You know what “housing” means, right?
Only because there’s a housing doesn’t mean it’s got an actual RWR inside or even it’s wiring.
That’s just a space where in the future this RWR is supposed to be?
Could be sufficient, maybe it’ll need a complete overhaul / redesign.
What does “combat specific modes” even mean in context?
It’s got an MFD with the software of another aircraft. Was it fully functional in said research plane? I don’t think so.
Surely you will make provision for carried armament, you’ll clearly doesn’t design a passenger transport aircraft if your intended plane should be an fighter craft…
Even more info
If we are able to find it was gonna be armed it should be enough to get it into the game
It never was.
But it was loaded with dummy’s to gather flight performance and flight behavior data.
As u will do with every experimental design for testing purposes.
But what we find it was equipped with real munitions then it should be added
If it can be proven, that the EAP could carry and use said weaponry, that’s a step towards implementation.
Paper vehicles you say?
4 Likes
If it could be proven it could carry and use said weaponry it would be more applicable than the 141.
The question to be answered is does it constitute an incomplete prototype (such as the YAK-141).
if they add a limited event game mode for fake vehicles and paper vehicles that does not include old removed vehicles i would not mind them but for main game play full no because they fake and there is zero info about there effectiveness game will end up like world of tanks but with better graphics.
The emphasis is much less on the wiring but simply if it was possible for it to be carried. Or intended. Sorry to draw from the 141 (again) but the reason it has IRST is because there was a cutout, the wiring or IRST didn’t even exist. The eap has a cavity, in a tail which already had the wiring, that was only removed for aesthetics and weight saving.
Essentially the EAP flight control computer is a FBW Jaguars system duplicated and the flight control surface software altered to work with the delta canard crank arrangement. It actually still had the software to use the pylons the Jag and Tornado could use. Also included a radar scope setting (with no input data) and RWR receiver (again with no data).
Oh theres also literal details on how theyre redesifn the avionics bay with cooling and a better housing to be filled with tornado ADV avionics.
Im not rushing all of these things so you might have to wait a few days for sources but if you’re interested keep an eye on my EAP thread.
I get your point entirely.
But i didn’t see anything to this point, wich indicates that the EAP was even close to be capable of beeing combat ready at all.
I could, on the other hand, see wich components they’ve intended to use, wich bits and pieces were recycled and what wishfully should or could be added in the (far) future.
But it never came to those stage, nor was everything developed at that time for it to be integrated and tested.
Additionally, that was never the intended use case for the EAP to went to the point it’ll be combat ready.
It just was an experimental research plane.
That’s the point about the Yak.
The Yak’s development was finished.
It’s got its final design, all bits and pieces together, all quirks sorted out, all components it would carry ready and only failed the actual production due to aforementioned reasons.
1 Like
My problem with this kind of “paper vehicles” discussions is, as we can see from this thread, that we can’t even seem to agree on what to consider a “paper vehicle”: a prototype? a mockup? a blueprint? If can’t even agree on that, how are we supposed to have a discussion of whether they should be in the game or not?
For me a “paper vehicle” is, as the name implies, a vehicle that remained on paper and no mockup nor prototype were build.
if mockup or even prototype was built then i don’t consider those as paper vehicles and in fact i do consider them real (even when the construction was not completed) as there can be more or less good reasons for the type’s cancellation (more often than not unrelated to the vehicle’s own performance).
In any case, personally, i don’t have any problem with even paper vehicles (as i consider them above) being added, as long as there’s enough documentation about said vehicle.
Edit: corrected a few typos and added corrected a few sentences
3 Likes