being right in the face of the Gaijin devs is a god teir reward. And if they say no, it just confirms they are biased. because as far as their own rules are concerned this fits the bill as a very simmilar but different aircraft that would eventually evolve into the typhoon.
3 Likes
Well, all that is left is to ping Smin and see what he will say about it now.
That’s a terrifying preposition, for some reason I am still hesitant to ping him, but yes, I should.
Shall i do it for you?
Should I
God speed
@Smin1080p I believe my comment above with the outlines of a post solves the criteria you laid out in the L26 thread, including RWR, Radar, intent to carry weapons and CM’s.
Hopefully this now brings to light enough information (with sources), for me to have a fully fledged suggestion on the topic approved and even eventually passed to the developers.
7 Likes
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