Posted May 9, 2023 i think the Meteor also deserves its own post as the primary long range weaponry of the 3 Eurocanards but I haven't really looked into that too much yet so I'm lacking sources. @MBDA_Meteor do you have any to share? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... MBDA_Meteor 20 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, _Iluminas_ said: also the only plane that is alowed by handbook to turn 9G at mach Can you give me a hint about the handbook? (handbook's number etc..) Edited January 31, 2023 by MBDA_Meteor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 1 hour ago, _Iluminas_ said: Also G limits 9g is the soft limit 12g is that hard limit with overwriting the fbw, with a max 15g onset https://web.archive.org/web/20131224105335/http://www.uni-graz.at/alpinmedizin//Watzmann/Watzmann_14_VortrWELSCH.pdf just keep in mind that you cannot manually overwrite the FBW system. unless the interviewed pilots and all of those articles are wrong ofc. the system itself might allow overshoots though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... _Iluminas_ 3,769 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 1 hour ago, MBDA_Meteor said: Can you give me a hint about the handbook? (handbook's number etc..) U guys misunderstood i dont have a handbook with the hard data but it is talked about that they are alowed to fly 9Gs at Mach by Handbook I have a Handbook for the Avionics but also that one is restricted and nothing about flight performance but i wanted to remind everyone with the latest leaks here 32 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: just keep in mind that you cannot manually overwrite the FBW system. unless the interviewed pilots and all of those articles are wrong ofc. the system itself might allow overshoots though yes while thats true the max Gs for the EF are always given at +9Gs so it could still be 12g Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 3 minutes ago, _Iluminas_ said: yes while thats true the max Gs for the EF are always given at +9Gs so it could still be 12g yeah. might be worth noting that its always said to do 9Gs sustained. that does not exclude the possibility of up to 12G overshoots(like what the Gripen is said to do). so probably is like that yea Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... MBDA_Meteor 20 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 16 minutes ago, _Iluminas_ said: U guys misunderstood i dont have a handbook with the hard data but it is talked about that they are alowed to fly 9Gs at Mach by Handbook I have a Handbook for the Avionics but also that one is restricted and nothing about flight performance but i wanted to remind everyone with the latest leaks here yes while thats true the max Gs for the EF are always given at +9Gs so it could still be 12g https://arca.live/b/gaijin/68746271 I think I found something. It is written in korean, but the main content is english pictures. The data in the photo shows that max 9G at mach and the maximum roll rate is 215 degrees/sec. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, MBDA_Meteor said: https://arca.live/b/gaijin/68746271 I think I found something. It is written in korean, but the main content is english pictures. The data in the photo shows that max 9G at mach and the maximum roll rate is 215 degrees/sec. ooooooo i have that manual i kinda have some doubts about the validity of that manual but lets just assume it is real.... just uhm yea... that "reversionary angle of attack indicator" is the little screen to the right of the head up panel Edited January 31, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Bugblox 57 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 16 hours ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: ooooooo i have that manual i kinda have some doubts about the validity of that manual but lets just assume it is real.... just uhm yea... that "reversionary angle of attack indicator" is the little screen to the right of the head up panel is the whole hud display in your manual or just certain parts of it? I'd like to see what can be displayed on the EF Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... _Iluminas_ 3,769 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Bugblox said: is the whole hud display in your manual or just certain parts of it? I'd like to see what can be displayed on the EF I have the same Manual there is basicly every possible button in there that u can press or Display, even most in coulor but its all in small parts. Edited February 1, 2023 by _Iluminas_ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 32 minutes ago, Bugblox said: is the whole hud display in your manual or just certain parts of it? I'd like to see what can be displayed on the EF all of it. its for the entire Avionics Suite. you can find it online, it contains other things like buttons, symbols, etc, etc too. i have 3 manuals, AER(EP).1F-EF2000(T)-1, FM-J-150-A-0002, and OTE 1C-16-1-4; if you can find them go ahead and read them, i won't be sharing them though 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Bugblox 57 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 2 hours ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: all of it. its for the entire Avionics Suite. you can find it online, it contains other things like buttons, symbols, etc, etc too. i have 3 manuals, AER(EP).1F-EF2000(T)-1, FM-J-150-A-0002, and OTE 1C-16-1-4; if you can find them go ahead and read them, i won't be sharing them though are you able to link any pages similar to this? https://imgur.com/a/RCw4JI7 (tornado HUD from a manual) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 47 minutes ago, Bugblox said: are you able to link any pages similar to this? https://imgur.com/a/RCw4JI7 (tornado HUD from a manual) similar to the imgur link? i mean i could just upload screenshots there but that would be the same as just posting the manual lol 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... MinenGishose 4 Report post Posted February 3, 2023 Guys, can you please upload all international trainings on Typhoon here, and most importantly, their result, I will be grateful, I didn’t find much information myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... 2 weeks later... TheAryanWaffle 25 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 Leaving aside later tranches and blocks, let's assume Germany, GB and Italy get a pre-production/Tranche 1 EF late this year (doubt it) or in 2024. Being realistic and knowing how WT works, it will probably come with nerfed IRIS-T/ASRAAM or just AIM-9L, early AIM-120A/B and Paveway bombs, maybe Brimstones for the british one but I doubt it. Let's also assume a BR of 13.0. How would it perform??? What counterparts would it have??? I guess it would be untouchable by almost anything in close-range fights, but how good would it really be in BVR engagements and CAS? Some quick possible counterparts I could think of (most of them with their own pros and cons compared to the EF): -US: F-16C (B50/52), F-15C, F-18C (all of them with AIM-9X if we get the IRIS-T/ASRAAM) -Russia: MiG-29SMT/M2, MiG-29KR, Su-27SM, Su-30 (+Su-35BM???) -Japan: F-15J (MSIP), XF-2A (kind of, really depends on the armament as it was just a prototype) -China: J-10A, J-11B, J-15, maybe Mirage 2000-5E for the Taiwanese line? -France: M2000-5F, early Rafale B/M (F1 and F2 blocks) -Sweden: JAS-39C, maybe F-18C for Finland Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 1 minute ago, TheAryanWaffle said: Leaving aside later tranches and blocks, let's assume Germany, GB and Italy get a pre-production/Tranche 1 EF late this year (doubt it) or in 2024. Being realistic and knowing how WT works, it will probably come with nerfed IRIS-T/ASRAAM or just AIM-9L, early AIM-120A/B and Paveway bombs, maybe Brimstones for the british one but I doubt it. Let's also assume a BR of 13.0. How would it perform??? What counterparts would it have??? I guess it would be untouchable by almost anything in close-range fights, but how good would it really be in BVR engagements and CAS? Some quick possible counterparts I could think of (most of them with their own pros and cons compared to the EF): -US: F-16C (B50/52), F-15C, F-18C (all of them with AIM-9X if we get the IRIS-T/ASRAAM) -Russia: MiG-29SMT/M2, MiG-29KR, Su-27SM, Su-30 (+Su-35BM???) -Japan: F-15J (MSIP), XF-2A (kind of, really depends on the armament as it was just a prototype) -China: J-10A, J-11B, J-15, maybe Mirage 2000-5E for the Taiwanese line? -France: M2000-5F, early Rafale B/M (F1 and F2 blocks) -Sweden: JAS-39C, maybe F-18C for Finland Early tranches and blocks did not have any ground strike capabilities. it was a pure air superiority fighter. So lets assume that they'd add the Tranche 1 Block 5. It would have AIM-120B, AIM-9L/i, not sure about ASRAAM and ofc IRIS-T but only analog, not digital(I assume that means no fancy 360° kills and only 'basic' sidewinder-like capability). Weapons would be very good, radar would be outstanding(its said to be one of, if not the most powerful M-Scan radar), it would be very survivable(lots of countermeasures and of course the DASS with MWS), HMD, and of course the flight performance. Which is exactly where its gonna get spicy. At altitude(FL100+), barely anything is going to beat it, on the deck it should be comparable but still superior to the F-16C. the counterparts you mentioned sound reasonable to me but its gonna be hard to balance given that the flight performance of the Eurofighter stays the same and it just gets new weapons. I dont want to fight J-15s with PL-15s while i only have AIM-120Bs... Later amraams are probably compatible but the Bundeswehr for example still has old AIM-120A/Bs which just dont compare to later variants. We're also mainly using Meteors now and its gonna be a looong while before those are introduced. Oh and by the way, the Bundeswehr would not tell me whether or not Taurus and GBU-54 integration was done :c Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... TheAryanWaffle 25 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 7 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: Early tranches and blocks did not have any ground strike capabilities. it was a pure air superiority fighter. So lets assume that they'd add the Tranche 1 Block 5. But I thought the initial ground attack capabilities were included with the Block 5? Or at the very least the RAF and LW B5s were later retrofitted to carry LGBs or something? I swear I have seen that claim somewhere, maybe in the airvectors page for the Eurofighter or maybe other source. Really cool insight though, sounds like it would still be a monster among its possible counterparts, I guess we'll have to wait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 34 minutes ago, TheAryanWaffle said: But I thought the initial ground attack capabilities were included with the Block 5? Or at the very least the RAF and LW B5s were later retrofitted to carry LGBs or something? I swear I have seen that claim somewhere, maybe in the airvectors page for the Eurofighter or maybe other source. Really cool insight though, sounds like it would still be a monster among its possible counterparts, I guess we'll have to wait. my bad, i was thinking about the Block 2B but yes the Block 5 should only lack full IRIS-T integration and of course Meteor integration. Edited February 11, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... MBDA_Meteor 20 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 6 hours ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: my bad, i was thinking about the Block 2B but yes the Block 5 should only lack full IRIS-T integration and of course Meteor integration. LW announced Meteor integration quite recently. The tranche 1 blk 5 version certainly wouldn't have been available. I've read an article about it somewhere. It is said that the typhoon's air-to-air capability was completed during tranche 2...I think IRIS-T was probably integrated around that time. In addition, in the case of F-16, the gaijin currently limits the AoA of F-16. therefore, the F-16 is not achieving maximum flight performance. If they were applied to typhoon, typhoon with restrictions on high AoA would be quite suffer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 17 minutes ago, MBDA_Meteor said: LW announced Meteor integration quite recently. The tranche 1 blk 5 version certainly wouldn't have been available. I've read an article about it somewhere. It is said that the typhoon's air-to-air capability was completed during tranche 2...I think IRIS-T was probably integrated around that time. In addition, in the case of F-16, the gaijin currently limits the AoA of F-16. therefore, the F-16 is not achieving maximum flight performance. If they were applied to typhoon, typhoon with restrictions on high AoA would be quite suffer. the LW only announced this recently because thats when they received the Meteor. Tranche 2 has full air to air capability because it adopted a new hardware standards for the computers which the Tranche 1 lacked. Its not possible to retrofit the Tranche 1 so they're being replaced by Tranche 4s now(or soon, like 2025). i really hope that gaijin figures out how to introduce these FBW systems properly. The Eurofighter is gonna be a bit more difficult tho because the FCS does not allow it to stall. it just doesnt. if you get too slow, it automatically recovers it because if it does stall, its unrecoverable, its that unstable. AoA limit on the Eurofighter should be very similar to the F-16 so its superior performance comes from the ability to sustain 9Gs until it runs out of fuel. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... beastmode71407 0 Report post Posted February 19, 2023 gaijin can use this: Eurofighter Typhoon (EF2000) (militaryfactory.com) to get some more info because Germany air tree has been lacking in the fighter role despite being one of the 3 major nations and no the mig-23 will not count due to better planes like the f-14, f-16, and the mig-29. they could put the fighter under the F-4F in the tech tree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 19, 2023 (edited) 28 minutes ago, beastmode71407 said: gaijin can use this: Eurofighter Typhoon (EF2000) (militaryfactory.com) to get some more info because Germany air tree has been lacking in the fighter role despite being one of the 3 major nations and no the mig-23 will not count due to better planes like the f-14, f-16, and the mig-29. they could put the fighter under the F-4F in the tech tree. that website is a little outdated(it doesnt say that Meteor is already operational). they also claim that it doesnt supercruise with drop tanks and only with no external weapons at all, which is also incorrect(according to multiple other sources). It's said to have demonstrated super cruise capability of up to mach 1.3 with external stores(such as fuel tanks) and up to mach 1.5 with a typical air superiority loadout(but no bags) Edited February 19, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... 2 weeks later... AryanDemigod88 7 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 On 11/02/2023 at 11:51, TheAryanWaffle said: How would it perform??? What counterparts would it have??? I guess it would be untouchable by almost anything in close-range fights, but how good would it really be in BVR engagements There have been studies conducted in Europe between 1992 and 1994 to evaluate combat aircraft. The relevant data was collected from combat simulations between various fighter planes and a modified Su-27 Flanker that was armed with missiles similar to the AMRAAM. The simulations were performed in one-on-one and two-on-two combat scenarios. Since British Aerospace, who conducted the simulations, could not guarantee independent evaluation, the relevant mass battles from three-on-three to eight-on-eight were investigated by the Defense Research Agency (DRA). All participating aircraft, except the Rafale, fired AMRAAM missiles. The simulation at DRA was performed using the JOUST computer model, which enabled a pilot-in-the-loop so that up to eight pilots could fly against up to eight human opponents. The average combat success was represented by a scale ranging from 0 (losing always) to 1 (winning always). The US-based military consulting firm RAND Corporation converted these results into kill ratios in their study, The Gray Threat (1995), favoring the US YF-22. The simulations showed the importance of maneuverability at high speed and the potential of a small radar signature in beyond visual range (BVR) combat, according to the DRA. The infrared search and track system (IRST) and Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS) of the EFA were considered to have high combat value. RAND correctly cited the results of the European studies but placed a particularly high emphasis on the importance of radar signature. In a February 1996 article in AIR FORCE Magazine, the RAND authors judged that the F-22 would perform best due to its stealth, supercruise, and radar performance. Instead of the fictitious F-15F correctly listed in the article, the real, less capable F-15E was mentioned in further internet dissemination. The text presents the results of the participating aircraft and their deviation from the series standard after weighting by RAND as follows: F-22: Achieved a 91% success rate (or 10:1) at BAe and a 90% success rate (or 9:1) at DRA. However, the empty weight of the aircraft increased by about 40% to almost 20 tons due to design flaws, cracking, and other issues. Additionally, the powerful infrared targeting system was removed for cost reasons before 1998. In current avionics descriptions of the aircraft, its electronic countermeasures capabilities are no longer mentioned. EFA (Eurofighter Typhoon): Achieved an 82% success rate (or 4.5:1) at BAe and a 75% success rate (or 3:1) at DRA. The empty weight of the aircraft was assumed to be 9.75 tons, which is about 13% off from the real weight of the Eurofighter. Otherwise, the aircraft is practically identical to the production model. F-15F: A fictional, improved version of the F-15C. Achieved a 60% success rate (or 1.5:1) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F-15F. F-15E: A real aircraft. The DRA simulated a 55% success rate (or 1.2:1) in mass combat situations. BAe did not conduct simulations with the F-15E. Rafale: Achieved a 50% success rate (or 1:1) at both BAe and DRA against the Su-35. In a 4-on-4+8 scenario, where four MiG-29s or Su-27s escorted eight bombers, the Rafale achieved 80-100% success rates. F/A-18E/F: A real aircraft. The DRA simulated a 45% success rate (or 1:1.2) in mass combat situations. BAe did not conduct simulations with the F/A-18E/F. F-15C: Achieved a 43% success rate (or 1:1.3) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F-15C. F/A-18C+: A fictional, improved version of the F/A-18C. Achieved a 25% success rate (or 1:3) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F/A-18C+. F/A-18C: Achieved a 21% success rate (or 1:3.8) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F/A-18C. F-16C: Achieved a 21% success rate (or 1:3.8) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F-16C. Gripen: Achieved a 40% success rate (or 1:1.5) at DRA. The empty weight was assumed to be 6622 kg, which matches the real weight of the aircraft. Mirage 2000: The DRA simulation resulted in a 35% success rate (or 1:1.8) in mass combat situations. It may have used the MICA missile. Tornado F.3: The DRA simulation resulted in a 30% success rate (or 1:2.3) in mass combat situations. It used AMRAAMS. The EF would simply be the best 4th gen in the game IF Gaijiggles decides to model it correctly according to what is publicly known . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... BagelIsMyWaifu 838 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 53 minutes ago, GoyimWarrior69 said: The EF would simply be the best 4th gen in the game IF Gaijiggles decides to model it correctly according to what is publicly known . And thats still with the M-scan, right? Damn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, BagelIsMyWaifu said: And thats still with the M-scan, right? Damn CAPTOR-E is a very recent thing(2025 for Germany). Kuwait is the first production customer with an AESA radar in the Eurofighter . They got the Mk0 CAPTOR-E starting in 2021, Germany is procuring the Mk1 alongside Spain. Italy and the UK(well, Leonardo and BAE systems) are still developing the Mk2 which is supposed to have better performance but no one knows too much about any of these. there's claims about the Mk2 but idk if thats in comparison to the Mk1 or the CAPTOR-M but do keep in mind that the CAPTOR-M is one of if not the best M-Scan radar on a fighter Edited March 1, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... BagelIsMyWaifu 838 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 19 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: but do keep in mind that the CAPTOR-M is one of if not the best M-Scan radar on a fighter Do you happen to know what the tracking limits of the M is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 Eurofighter supremacy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options... Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 7 of 12 Share More sharing options... Followers 0
MBDA_Meteor 20 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, _Iluminas_ said: also the only plane that is alowed by handbook to turn 9G at mach Can you give me a hint about the handbook? (handbook's number etc..) Edited January 31, 2023 by MBDA_Meteor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 1 hour ago, _Iluminas_ said: Also G limits 9g is the soft limit 12g is that hard limit with overwriting the fbw, with a max 15g onset https://web.archive.org/web/20131224105335/http://www.uni-graz.at/alpinmedizin//Watzmann/Watzmann_14_VortrWELSCH.pdf just keep in mind that you cannot manually overwrite the FBW system. unless the interviewed pilots and all of those articles are wrong ofc. the system itself might allow overshoots though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Iluminas_ 3,769 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 1 hour ago, MBDA_Meteor said: Can you give me a hint about the handbook? (handbook's number etc..) U guys misunderstood i dont have a handbook with the hard data but it is talked about that they are alowed to fly 9Gs at Mach by Handbook I have a Handbook for the Avionics but also that one is restricted and nothing about flight performance but i wanted to remind everyone with the latest leaks here 32 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: just keep in mind that you cannot manually overwrite the FBW system. unless the interviewed pilots and all of those articles are wrong ofc. the system itself might allow overshoots though yes while thats true the max Gs for the EF are always given at +9Gs so it could still be 12g Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 3 minutes ago, _Iluminas_ said: yes while thats true the max Gs for the EF are always given at +9Gs so it could still be 12g yeah. might be worth noting that its always said to do 9Gs sustained. that does not exclude the possibility of up to 12G overshoots(like what the Gripen is said to do). so probably is like that yea Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBDA_Meteor 20 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 16 minutes ago, _Iluminas_ said: U guys misunderstood i dont have a handbook with the hard data but it is talked about that they are alowed to fly 9Gs at Mach by Handbook I have a Handbook for the Avionics but also that one is restricted and nothing about flight performance but i wanted to remind everyone with the latest leaks here yes while thats true the max Gs for the EF are always given at +9Gs so it could still be 12g https://arca.live/b/gaijin/68746271 I think I found something. It is written in korean, but the main content is english pictures. The data in the photo shows that max 9G at mach and the maximum roll rate is 215 degrees/sec. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, MBDA_Meteor said: https://arca.live/b/gaijin/68746271 I think I found something. It is written in korean, but the main content is english pictures. The data in the photo shows that max 9G at mach and the maximum roll rate is 215 degrees/sec. ooooooo i have that manual i kinda have some doubts about the validity of that manual but lets just assume it is real.... just uhm yea... that "reversionary angle of attack indicator" is the little screen to the right of the head up panel Edited January 31, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugblox 57 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 16 hours ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: ooooooo i have that manual i kinda have some doubts about the validity of that manual but lets just assume it is real.... just uhm yea... that "reversionary angle of attack indicator" is the little screen to the right of the head up panel is the whole hud display in your manual or just certain parts of it? I'd like to see what can be displayed on the EF Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Iluminas_ 3,769 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Bugblox said: is the whole hud display in your manual or just certain parts of it? I'd like to see what can be displayed on the EF I have the same Manual there is basicly every possible button in there that u can press or Display, even most in coulor but its all in small parts. Edited February 1, 2023 by _Iluminas_ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 32 minutes ago, Bugblox said: is the whole hud display in your manual or just certain parts of it? I'd like to see what can be displayed on the EF all of it. its for the entire Avionics Suite. you can find it online, it contains other things like buttons, symbols, etc, etc too. i have 3 manuals, AER(EP).1F-EF2000(T)-1, FM-J-150-A-0002, and OTE 1C-16-1-4; if you can find them go ahead and read them, i won't be sharing them though 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugblox 57 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 2 hours ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: all of it. its for the entire Avionics Suite. you can find it online, it contains other things like buttons, symbols, etc, etc too. i have 3 manuals, AER(EP).1F-EF2000(T)-1, FM-J-150-A-0002, and OTE 1C-16-1-4; if you can find them go ahead and read them, i won't be sharing them though are you able to link any pages similar to this? https://imgur.com/a/RCw4JI7 (tornado HUD from a manual) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 1, 2023 47 minutes ago, Bugblox said: are you able to link any pages similar to this? https://imgur.com/a/RCw4JI7 (tornado HUD from a manual) similar to the imgur link? i mean i could just upload screenshots there but that would be the same as just posting the manual lol 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinenGishose 4 Report post Posted February 3, 2023 Guys, can you please upload all international trainings on Typhoon here, and most importantly, their result, I will be grateful, I didn’t find much information myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAryanWaffle 25 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 Leaving aside later tranches and blocks, let's assume Germany, GB and Italy get a pre-production/Tranche 1 EF late this year (doubt it) or in 2024. Being realistic and knowing how WT works, it will probably come with nerfed IRIS-T/ASRAAM or just AIM-9L, early AIM-120A/B and Paveway bombs, maybe Brimstones for the british one but I doubt it. Let's also assume a BR of 13.0. How would it perform??? What counterparts would it have??? I guess it would be untouchable by almost anything in close-range fights, but how good would it really be in BVR engagements and CAS? Some quick possible counterparts I could think of (most of them with their own pros and cons compared to the EF): -US: F-16C (B50/52), F-15C, F-18C (all of them with AIM-9X if we get the IRIS-T/ASRAAM) -Russia: MiG-29SMT/M2, MiG-29KR, Su-27SM, Su-30 (+Su-35BM???) -Japan: F-15J (MSIP), XF-2A (kind of, really depends on the armament as it was just a prototype) -China: J-10A, J-11B, J-15, maybe Mirage 2000-5E for the Taiwanese line? -France: M2000-5F, early Rafale B/M (F1 and F2 blocks) -Sweden: JAS-39C, maybe F-18C for Finland Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 1 minute ago, TheAryanWaffle said: Leaving aside later tranches and blocks, let's assume Germany, GB and Italy get a pre-production/Tranche 1 EF late this year (doubt it) or in 2024. Being realistic and knowing how WT works, it will probably come with nerfed IRIS-T/ASRAAM or just AIM-9L, early AIM-120A/B and Paveway bombs, maybe Brimstones for the british one but I doubt it. Let's also assume a BR of 13.0. How would it perform??? What counterparts would it have??? I guess it would be untouchable by almost anything in close-range fights, but how good would it really be in BVR engagements and CAS? Some quick possible counterparts I could think of (most of them with their own pros and cons compared to the EF): -US: F-16C (B50/52), F-15C, F-18C (all of them with AIM-9X if we get the IRIS-T/ASRAAM) -Russia: MiG-29SMT/M2, MiG-29KR, Su-27SM, Su-30 (+Su-35BM???) -Japan: F-15J (MSIP), XF-2A (kind of, really depends on the armament as it was just a prototype) -China: J-10A, J-11B, J-15, maybe Mirage 2000-5E for the Taiwanese line? -France: M2000-5F, early Rafale B/M (F1 and F2 blocks) -Sweden: JAS-39C, maybe F-18C for Finland Early tranches and blocks did not have any ground strike capabilities. it was a pure air superiority fighter. So lets assume that they'd add the Tranche 1 Block 5. It would have AIM-120B, AIM-9L/i, not sure about ASRAAM and ofc IRIS-T but only analog, not digital(I assume that means no fancy 360° kills and only 'basic' sidewinder-like capability). Weapons would be very good, radar would be outstanding(its said to be one of, if not the most powerful M-Scan radar), it would be very survivable(lots of countermeasures and of course the DASS with MWS), HMD, and of course the flight performance. Which is exactly where its gonna get spicy. At altitude(FL100+), barely anything is going to beat it, on the deck it should be comparable but still superior to the F-16C. the counterparts you mentioned sound reasonable to me but its gonna be hard to balance given that the flight performance of the Eurofighter stays the same and it just gets new weapons. I dont want to fight J-15s with PL-15s while i only have AIM-120Bs... Later amraams are probably compatible but the Bundeswehr for example still has old AIM-120A/Bs which just dont compare to later variants. We're also mainly using Meteors now and its gonna be a looong while before those are introduced. Oh and by the way, the Bundeswehr would not tell me whether or not Taurus and GBU-54 integration was done :c Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAryanWaffle 25 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 7 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: Early tranches and blocks did not have any ground strike capabilities. it was a pure air superiority fighter. So lets assume that they'd add the Tranche 1 Block 5. But I thought the initial ground attack capabilities were included with the Block 5? Or at the very least the RAF and LW B5s were later retrofitted to carry LGBs or something? I swear I have seen that claim somewhere, maybe in the airvectors page for the Eurofighter or maybe other source. Really cool insight though, sounds like it would still be a monster among its possible counterparts, I guess we'll have to wait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 34 minutes ago, TheAryanWaffle said: But I thought the initial ground attack capabilities were included with the Block 5? Or at the very least the RAF and LW B5s were later retrofitted to carry LGBs or something? I swear I have seen that claim somewhere, maybe in the airvectors page for the Eurofighter or maybe other source. Really cool insight though, sounds like it would still be a monster among its possible counterparts, I guess we'll have to wait. my bad, i was thinking about the Block 2B but yes the Block 5 should only lack full IRIS-T integration and of course Meteor integration. Edited February 11, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBDA_Meteor 20 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 6 hours ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: my bad, i was thinking about the Block 2B but yes the Block 5 should only lack full IRIS-T integration and of course Meteor integration. LW announced Meteor integration quite recently. The tranche 1 blk 5 version certainly wouldn't have been available. I've read an article about it somewhere. It is said that the typhoon's air-to-air capability was completed during tranche 2...I think IRIS-T was probably integrated around that time. In addition, in the case of F-16, the gaijin currently limits the AoA of F-16. therefore, the F-16 is not achieving maximum flight performance. If they were applied to typhoon, typhoon with restrictions on high AoA would be quite suffer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 11, 2023 17 minutes ago, MBDA_Meteor said: LW announced Meteor integration quite recently. The tranche 1 blk 5 version certainly wouldn't have been available. I've read an article about it somewhere. It is said that the typhoon's air-to-air capability was completed during tranche 2...I think IRIS-T was probably integrated around that time. In addition, in the case of F-16, the gaijin currently limits the AoA of F-16. therefore, the F-16 is not achieving maximum flight performance. If they were applied to typhoon, typhoon with restrictions on high AoA would be quite suffer. the LW only announced this recently because thats when they received the Meteor. Tranche 2 has full air to air capability because it adopted a new hardware standards for the computers which the Tranche 1 lacked. Its not possible to retrofit the Tranche 1 so they're being replaced by Tranche 4s now(or soon, like 2025). i really hope that gaijin figures out how to introduce these FBW systems properly. The Eurofighter is gonna be a bit more difficult tho because the FCS does not allow it to stall. it just doesnt. if you get too slow, it automatically recovers it because if it does stall, its unrecoverable, its that unstable. AoA limit on the Eurofighter should be very similar to the F-16 so its superior performance comes from the ability to sustain 9Gs until it runs out of fuel. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beastmode71407 0 Report post Posted February 19, 2023 gaijin can use this: Eurofighter Typhoon (EF2000) (militaryfactory.com) to get some more info because Germany air tree has been lacking in the fighter role despite being one of the 3 major nations and no the mig-23 will not count due to better planes like the f-14, f-16, and the mig-29. they could put the fighter under the F-4F in the tech tree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted February 19, 2023 (edited) 28 minutes ago, beastmode71407 said: gaijin can use this: Eurofighter Typhoon (EF2000) (militaryfactory.com) to get some more info because Germany air tree has been lacking in the fighter role despite being one of the 3 major nations and no the mig-23 will not count due to better planes like the f-14, f-16, and the mig-29. they could put the fighter under the F-4F in the tech tree. that website is a little outdated(it doesnt say that Meteor is already operational). they also claim that it doesnt supercruise with drop tanks and only with no external weapons at all, which is also incorrect(according to multiple other sources). It's said to have demonstrated super cruise capability of up to mach 1.3 with external stores(such as fuel tanks) and up to mach 1.5 with a typical air superiority loadout(but no bags) Edited February 19, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AryanDemigod88 7 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 On 11/02/2023 at 11:51, TheAryanWaffle said: How would it perform??? What counterparts would it have??? I guess it would be untouchable by almost anything in close-range fights, but how good would it really be in BVR engagements There have been studies conducted in Europe between 1992 and 1994 to evaluate combat aircraft. The relevant data was collected from combat simulations between various fighter planes and a modified Su-27 Flanker that was armed with missiles similar to the AMRAAM. The simulations were performed in one-on-one and two-on-two combat scenarios. Since British Aerospace, who conducted the simulations, could not guarantee independent evaluation, the relevant mass battles from three-on-three to eight-on-eight were investigated by the Defense Research Agency (DRA). All participating aircraft, except the Rafale, fired AMRAAM missiles. The simulation at DRA was performed using the JOUST computer model, which enabled a pilot-in-the-loop so that up to eight pilots could fly against up to eight human opponents. The average combat success was represented by a scale ranging from 0 (losing always) to 1 (winning always). The US-based military consulting firm RAND Corporation converted these results into kill ratios in their study, The Gray Threat (1995), favoring the US YF-22. The simulations showed the importance of maneuverability at high speed and the potential of a small radar signature in beyond visual range (BVR) combat, according to the DRA. The infrared search and track system (IRST) and Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS) of the EFA were considered to have high combat value. RAND correctly cited the results of the European studies but placed a particularly high emphasis on the importance of radar signature. In a February 1996 article in AIR FORCE Magazine, the RAND authors judged that the F-22 would perform best due to its stealth, supercruise, and radar performance. Instead of the fictitious F-15F correctly listed in the article, the real, less capable F-15E was mentioned in further internet dissemination. The text presents the results of the participating aircraft and their deviation from the series standard after weighting by RAND as follows: F-22: Achieved a 91% success rate (or 10:1) at BAe and a 90% success rate (or 9:1) at DRA. However, the empty weight of the aircraft increased by about 40% to almost 20 tons due to design flaws, cracking, and other issues. Additionally, the powerful infrared targeting system was removed for cost reasons before 1998. In current avionics descriptions of the aircraft, its electronic countermeasures capabilities are no longer mentioned. EFA (Eurofighter Typhoon): Achieved an 82% success rate (or 4.5:1) at BAe and a 75% success rate (or 3:1) at DRA. The empty weight of the aircraft was assumed to be 9.75 tons, which is about 13% off from the real weight of the Eurofighter. Otherwise, the aircraft is practically identical to the production model. F-15F: A fictional, improved version of the F-15C. Achieved a 60% success rate (or 1.5:1) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F-15F. F-15E: A real aircraft. The DRA simulated a 55% success rate (or 1.2:1) in mass combat situations. BAe did not conduct simulations with the F-15E. Rafale: Achieved a 50% success rate (or 1:1) at both BAe and DRA against the Su-35. In a 4-on-4+8 scenario, where four MiG-29s or Su-27s escorted eight bombers, the Rafale achieved 80-100% success rates. F/A-18E/F: A real aircraft. The DRA simulated a 45% success rate (or 1:1.2) in mass combat situations. BAe did not conduct simulations with the F/A-18E/F. F-15C: Achieved a 43% success rate (or 1:1.3) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F-15C. F/A-18C+: A fictional, improved version of the F/A-18C. Achieved a 25% success rate (or 1:3) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F/A-18C+. F/A-18C: Achieved a 21% success rate (or 1:3.8) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F/A-18C. F-16C: Achieved a 21% success rate (or 1:3.8) at BAe. The DRA did not conduct simulations with the F-16C. Gripen: Achieved a 40% success rate (or 1:1.5) at DRA. The empty weight was assumed to be 6622 kg, which matches the real weight of the aircraft. Mirage 2000: The DRA simulation resulted in a 35% success rate (or 1:1.8) in mass combat situations. It may have used the MICA missile. Tornado F.3: The DRA simulation resulted in a 30% success rate (or 1:2.3) in mass combat situations. It used AMRAAMS. The EF would simply be the best 4th gen in the game IF Gaijiggles decides to model it correctly according to what is publicly known . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BagelIsMyWaifu 838 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 53 minutes ago, GoyimWarrior69 said: The EF would simply be the best 4th gen in the game IF Gaijiggles decides to model it correctly according to what is publicly known . And thats still with the M-scan, right? Damn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster_Boiiiii 753 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, BagelIsMyWaifu said: And thats still with the M-scan, right? Damn CAPTOR-E is a very recent thing(2025 for Germany). Kuwait is the first production customer with an AESA radar in the Eurofighter . They got the Mk0 CAPTOR-E starting in 2021, Germany is procuring the Mk1 alongside Spain. Italy and the UK(well, Leonardo and BAE systems) are still developing the Mk2 which is supposed to have better performance but no one knows too much about any of these. there's claims about the Mk2 but idk if thats in comparison to the Mk1 or the CAPTOR-M but do keep in mind that the CAPTOR-M is one of if not the best M-Scan radar on a fighter Edited March 1, 2023 by Faster_Boiiiii Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BagelIsMyWaifu 838 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 19 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said: but do keep in mind that the CAPTOR-M is one of if not the best M-Scan radar on a fighter Do you happen to know what the tracking limits of the M is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314 Report post Posted March 1, 2023 Eurofighter supremacy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best answer
Posted
i think the Meteor also deserves its own post as the primary long range weaponry of the 3 Eurocanards but I haven't really looked into that too much yet so I'm lacking sources.
@MBDA_Meteor do you have any to share?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.