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
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 :(