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.
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.
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.
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.
Not never. If more things about it hit the light it might come. We just need a proof that it could use Tornado avionics, everything else can be worked around
If this game was actually based on evidence, rather than just pretending to be so, I would agree with you.
This is the same company that gave Japan a fictional F-16 to make up for a smaller gap than what the UK has. But we can’t be given any creative liberties because reasons.
Top left corner on the unpainted side, that is where the Tornado RWR was housed, they removed it and left the housing there. Then they got a visit from Dassault ACX design lead, who recognised the housing and they had to remove it because they didn’t want people to think it was just some sort of recycled Frankenstein as they were boasting about the new ‘superplastic -formed diffusion -bonded titanium’ that they had developed.
It undertook all wind tunnel tests before the fairings were removed it was very much a last minute thing IIRC like 2 weeks before it was painted.
I have already provided links to RAND which call it a Pre-FSD prototype, furthmore the extracts from the book refer to it as a prototype as well. As I already explained to Gaijin, it is called a Technology demonstrator for 2 main reasons.
Number 1, so the UK government had no commitment to financing, developing or producing the aircraft.
Number 2, so German and Italian governments would appear neutral as this was very much a Dassault vs BAe competition to decide who would develop the next joint fighter aircraft.
I literally provided an extract of the book with reference to up-arming the UK’s prototype to the level of the other 2 cancelled prototypes by MBB and AIT.
I also proved it had a planned software upgrade with the full tornado avionics package. I seriously cannot do more and i’ve already proven most of it.
I dunno whether I need to see if I can get a Dev’s input on this or what, because the rules for internal suggestions are different as is shown by the AJ and realistically all this does is help them to sell more British premiums.
I already proved this, he’s saying I need to prove that they intended to apply all the features the aircraft could have applied. But they never intended to give an F-5C countermeasures and yet it has them…
Like dude, intent has never been an issue except from here and I already proved that originally they intended to arm this thing.
That’s pretty much what Smin has told me, and obviously I can’t get those pictures because it never mounted Foxhunter, that was just what was going to come in the armed retrofit which I proved they intended the aircraft to undergo.
There is no point. Like I said, they make their decisions and then come up with the justification after the fact. You might as well argue with a brick wall.
