Now we wait and pray
I’ve been praying for months…
2 Likes
Great work man! Can’t wait to see what excuse they use next
1 Like
Hey. Right now, we have no intentions to add the EAP for the same reasons already previously mentioned. The detail in your post is indeed excellent and well researched. However it still does not bring it to the level of the Yak-141 and a lot of the claims you are making regarding some elements are still only theoretical without any direct confirmation.
All of the points regarding Radar, RWR and countermeasures will need to be supported with source material to show they were propose and considered. Right now your post is currently speculatory that the EAP would have had Foxhunter Stage 2 and the RWR of the Tornado, but none of the extracts shared or sources linked show or confirm that. SuperTEMP has no supporting evidence, as does BOL.
It had no weapons integration of any kind. Thus a lot of the systems, pylons, and other information remain an unknown.
We already have other aircraft planned out for the future of the British tree that don’t require resorting to an unarmed technology demonstrator that has a lot of missing information to fully ground a lot of these claims and points. So the EAP is not under any consideration currently.
7 Likes
Aw man :/ I was expecting that but it is still kind of sad
1 Like
10 Likes
Ballast, the fact that it’s developed from the ACA and is interchangeable as the book states, that means the specifications for the UK ACA which included the Foxhunter Radar applies.
I know that there is an extract with specific reference to this I’ll have to go back through the book and find the exact source which definitely states a Foxhunter Radar for the UK and Export or Blue Falcon radar.
In the tail, to which I have provided a picture, it is visible there and design requirements for ACA/EAP mandated an RWR, its in the tail and recycled from the Tornado. Furthermore my picture of the intended software/avionics refit includes ‘Defensive Aids’ which shows intent to mount an RWR.
I can only say that it must have carried them due to the requirements set out by ACA and AST 403, they were required, just not detailed. A stake in BOL was bought for the GR.7 but I can’t prove a link to ACA/EAP.
But now I think about it during Desert Storm the Phantom countermeasures were retrofitted to the Tornado aft fuselage, and as the rear aft fuselage was largely the same due to the engine’s being identical bar thrust reversers, using a bit of the F-5C logic, it would be possible to retrofit an EAP just as you could retrofit an F-5A family of aircraft with flares. Again employment intention is covered under ‘Defensive Aids’
It would have theoretically been capable of mounting them as the SuperTEMP upgrade took place in 1988, with the EAP flying until 1991, furthermore it was to be in-line with the Tornado ADV and as you can see based on the Barrie Hygate view, AMRAAM was also suggested, which was built off of the ADV SuperTEMP upgrade IIRC. Either that or it could just receive standard SKYFLASH.
I’ve ran with this intent portion so far pretty much entirely to the T. The F-5C was never intended to be retrofitted with flares, but as it could have theoretically mounted them, it receives them in-game. Equally it could’ve carried the flares, but couldn’t have used them without extra wiring. I have proven EAP can carry an RWR, and can carry countermeasures, I have proven the intent was to develop the systems to support them and would have included a modernised avionics bay with the established FCS of the EAP/ACA and systems of the Tornado ADV, I have also shown that the cockpit had all the considerations of the F-16’s in-game and the earlier aircraft including the wiring and buttons for weapons release, countermeasure release, HMS, etcetera. I have also proven that it was intended to be developed into a full weapons fit aircraft. I do not see how intent plays such a major role in this when I’ve outlined the ways to which it was planned to integrate these systems. There is an extract which refers to the MBB and BAe prototypes and says that it was planned to bring it up to a full weapons fit.
Regardless, I would like to enquire what other elements I have failed to satisfy, presuming everything I have said in this comment I can find a source for. To summarise those points, RWR had a housing as did the flare/chaff dispensers which can take precedent from the F-5C. Avionics were always planned I have already shown this. Radar fits in the housing, was always planned as part of a ‘full weapons fit’ and furthermore would have not required structural changes, plus the MFD features a radar scope.
3 Likes
A certain SAAF plane perhaps
The next step after Smins predictable ‘No x2’ will be to directly compare each item against the Yak 141’s acceptance criteria until the double standards become clear as day
4 Likes
I already started doing that.
-
RWR
The EAP/ACA had he provisions to mount an RWR, no need for wiring is outlined under Gaijins rules for implementation, for instance the F-5C had no wiring for countermeasures, but could have mounted them, the Yak-141 had no wiring for the IRST, but could have mounted one. -
Countermeasures
The EAP/ACA would likely have used BOL countermeasure rails but in the absence of this, the option of mounting Vinten countermeasure dispensers or ALE-40 to the lower portion of the aft fuselage covers this point these have 2 cases per cartridge to give a total of 60 countermeasures. It could have carried them and therefore like the Yak-141 and F-5C can receive them. See below:
Spoiler
-
Weapons systems
I have showed intent to retrofit the EAP/ACA with the Tornado ADV avionics package which further adds weight to the assertion of the Foxhunter radar which would obviously work with the Tornado’s avionics, it never got to mounting the system, but could have done due to the radome, ballast, and intended avionics refit. Furthermore the MFD/HUD has the same features as the F-16 because BAe developed the F-16 cockpit. -
It had no weapons integration of any kind. Thus a lot of the systems, pylons, and other information remain an unknown.
This has never been a requirement for them to actually be integrated, I have outwardly proven that it was to integrate the Tornado ADV weapons systems. They would be copy-paste as they were to be in real life.
Equally the books that I use as sources, are endorsed by BAe, and my claims from them I have provided pictures of and explained how they fit with the aircraft. To assert that this aircraft was never intended to be armed is simply inaccurate now,
6 Likes
hope for something special
1 Like
Ballast isn’t a Foxhunter 2G however. Currently there is not a clear source attached that shows EAP would get Foxhunter 2G as you claimed. Only that there is technically space to fit it there. But that’s very far from a functioning radar system and integrated weaponry.
The EAP used a Tornado tail. Everything else however is speculation without knowing what the RWR system would be and where.
Again, this needs to be solidified. Right now, its speculation based on where you think it would be. Not where it actually was, would be or was planned to be.
Again, also theoretical. Not supported by sources so far that show integration with EAP.
Currently nothing really has been satisfied that would change any considerations on the EAP. Lots of the claims made are speculation rather than solid plans or even loose conformations. Too much of the aircraft remains based on loose speculations and a lot of what-ifs.
The only reason EAP would need to be a resort in the first place was if there was nothing possible to add to the British tree for a considerable amount of time. But there isn’t. There is no need to resort to an unarmed technology demonstrator which was not even a prototype of a combat aircraft.
There is also no precedent from the F-5C here as it has the flares that are well demonstrated to be possible to fit to any F-5A family member (of which the C is) via retrofitting. The fact it shares a tail with the Tornado is not really much evidence at all of an RWR suite, as even some of the early actual Eurofighter prototypes did not have RWR systems until much later.
As I mentioned, the EAP has already been investigated. There are no plans to pursue this aircraft right now, as better options remain that were actually functional combat aircraft. I understand you are passionate about this aircraft and your personal research is indeed great. But its not simply a case of trying to meet a certain base criteria of what you believe is sufficient and then it will be considered. By BAe’s own definition, it was a Technology Demonstrator.
Too much of this aircraft remains speculatory and unsatisfactory for the standard implementation of an aircraft in game. The developers are not going to change the approach to the aircraft simply on the basis of comparisons you can draw to other aircraft. If more information becomes available that solidifies some of the claims and theories around EAP via direct confirmation and weighted plans, then the aircraft may eventually meet the basic requirements to be submitted as a community suggestion. But right now, its not at that level yet. So going round and round with the current information trying to connect it with other aircraft is not going to change that either.
2 Likes
Smin, I’m sorry, but how can you make any of these comments refusing the EAP when the F-16AJ is in the game, which is an even worse situation than both the Yak-141 and EAP?
EAP is also a far better alternative to the copy paste Gripen, F-18s, Mig-29s, which should remain unique to their respective countries (Sweden, USA, Indian Mig) and the ones that actually used them (German Mig), unlike Britain. That’s what tech trees are for, to specialize in equipment as much as possible with as little copy paste as possible. And right now, the EAP is a perfectly possible addition, as long as the F-16AJ continues to exist.
4 Likes
i doubt there is any thing we can do to change their minds
So Gripen it most likely is
We explained why the F-16AJ was introduced to the game and the context around it. Japan having a lack of top tier options for a very long amount of time in any capacity without it. We made it clear how the AJ was an exception rather than a new standard acceptance for a vehicle coming to the game. The F-16AJ for all intents and purposes in game is simply a production block F-16A for Japan.
Yak-141 is the prototype of a planned combat aircraft, with fully functioning systems that were integrated as well as detailed plans and tests for those systems that were not. Therefor it was possible to implement it with all of the things it did have and was planned to have with that information being available.
EAP is a technology demonstrator that isn’t required to add to the game when the British tree has other more plausible options available. Too much of it remains simply speculation at this stage, and plans have already been made for more suitable options.
1 Like
suitable options
give more hope