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
1 Like
If the F16AJ wasn’t added, Japan would be left with a 11.7 phantom that is Better than the 11.3 phantom in the UK TT (our highest tier fighter) yet no decision at the time was made to supplement the British air tree with a fighter that could have come from a commonwealth nation. Japan will have gotten F16AJ and likely an F15 between the time Britain was given the FGR.2 and it’s next fighter
3 Likes
The decision to add the AJ was not just from a pure fighter perspective. Japan also has a lack of CAS options, which the Phantom is capable off, but most nations have more suitable candidates too. The AJ also helps to fill that gap for Japan, as well as the fighter role. Britain on the other hand has no shortage of CAS aircraft and has numerous Rank VI, VII and VIII additions over the last few years since the FGR.2,
We go through periods of time sadly where some nations lack examples of one thing in particular more than others. Italy and Japan as well as others have both had that. Britain is currently in that period from where it had no domestic fighter aircraft directly comparable to those in game from other nations. Where its possible to do so, we always find candidates to fill those gaps. As we have already said, one is on the way for the British tree. As well as other aircraft in the future too.
1 Like
There are 2 almost identical Phantoms at 11.3 FGR and FG.
One could have received 9l’s and moved to 11.7 just like what you did with the AJ and the other stayed at 11.3.
You’ve said many times that you’re happy with the BR of the phantoms, odd to have chosen to keep both at 11.3 needlessly and say that Britain must remain in a lul without doing something that’s already been done in game (Just like the situation with EAP, Yak 141, F16AJ)
5 Likes
So its a dedicated fighter which the a tornado with AMRAAMS and harrier wouldn’t be that so Griepb time is more likely
Not sure what you mean. Tornado F.3 with AMRAAMs would be a dedicated fighter/inceptor, because it will have zero ground pounding capabilities.
As far as I’m concerned smin basically confirmed that the ‘new’ UK jet isn’t going to be a useful multirole aircraft like what everyone else has.
See where he says this
We are gonna get something foreign
Yea, sadly UK went then with Weapons>Airframe. That is why Tornados were usefull. They were flying around with ASRAAM while everyone else flied 9L/M. It wont work in game tho, as it would give tornado 4 free kills (we have neither DIRCM nor “big boom” flares to counter IIR).
3 Likes
Lemme break this down real quick. You’re telling us that the aircraft protorype, because that’s what it is not a “Technology Demonstrator” that used the tornado’s avionics. again IT USED THE TORNADO’S AVIONICS! Did not have the capability to USE THE TORNADO’S RADAR AND RWR SYSTEM?
Which would by extension allow for the usage of all armmements that the F.3 Tornado would field? Am I understadning this correctly? because by the logic used in that statement I quoted that’s what you’re telling us.
2 Likes
“As it was an experimental and technology demonstration aircraft, no weapons or military equipment was fitted, although dummy weapons were carried in a low-drag position.”
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/heritage/bae-eap
BAE themselves claim it was a technology demonstrator and also make it clear it had no weaponry or military equipment.
At the moment, we have already answered all there is on EAP. There is currently nothing further to discuss.
1 Like
The Tornado RWR system was placed in a fairing on the front and rear of the tail fin for the GR.1, and on the rear of the tailfin and the base of the wing on the F.3.
The EAP does not have any fairings on the tail fin, and does not appear to have wing root fairings either. That poses a problem for proving it had an RWR. I know that @Rileyy3437 said somewhere else that be original tail had an RWR fairing on it, but it was removed before first flight. If someone can dig out a photo of the RWR fairing on EAP that would probably help somewhat. Even the section of the book backing that claim up would be something.
1 Like
sometimes reading BAE websites are too hard man :(
What something is said on a site and what it actually is are two different things. they can call it a tech demo aircraft now because that’s all it ended up as, at the time it would have been a tech demo aircraft AND prototype.
It would have been there to show off to the MoD and to also be ready for prototype fitting. the stage it was at would have been in that muddy area between tech demo and prototype, when the USSR commited implosion. The same stage i surmise that the 141 would have been at.
This thing was made for the Agile combat Aircraft requirements. these would eventually become part of the Eurofighter Project. however at the time they were completly different things. They are super simmilar but they are different projects. it just so happened that the EAP was a good leapfrog for the Eurofighter.
Had the ACA progressed further I can garuntee that this thing would have had all the other things fitted to it. however times changed and priorites shifted because the soviet suddenly became a non issue.
3 Likes
If i recall correctly from some of other @Rileyy3437’s posts that was done on purpose to make people not thing they were not using tornado parts and it could easily be added back.
I wonder if wayback machine will bear fruit in this case. Will check that out when im out of the 40m 4h train ride(love the snow)
That’s generally how prototypes work. Unless you think the Ministry of Defence partially funded it out of good will. The only flying yak41 prototypes didn’t have weaponry fitted either, as the program was cancelled.
The Experimental Aircraft Programme (EAP) brought together critical technologies and capabilities ahead of the EFA (later Eurofighter Typhoon) programme.
The EAP programme originated in 1982, and represented a risk reduction activity between the Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA) study conducted by British Aerospace (BAe), West Germany’s Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) and Italian aircraft company Aeritalia and the product definition of the four-nation (UK, Germany, Italy and Spain) EFA programme.
The contract for EAP was signed on 26th May 1983, to be jointly funded by the MoD and Industry.
BAE themselves call it a risk reduction activity for the agile COMBAT aircraft programme. Clearly there was no plan to develop a combat aircraft from the EAP…
The primary difference between the EAP and Yak41, is that the EAP actually developed into the basis for an actual aircraft, the typhoon. The yak41 ultimately didn’t lead to anything, the data was used for F-35 development, that’s it.
2 Likes
Yeah i’ll believe it when I see it. Far more likely GJN just gives us trash and says “sorry no options” whilst putting their head firmly in the sand to any potential gap fillers. I’ve lost all faith that they’ll ever be fair to UK players. The fact that they pump out CR2s, and now a premium version, whilst modelling them as the worst MBT in the game is just taunting us at this point.
4 Likes