Spectre11

AI translated?

NGAD is a systems of systems concept, not just a single platform. They are re-evaluating the design of the mannes platform component of that system and the final word hasn't been spoken yet. The F-15 is still in production unlike the F-22 and is therefore a more readily available and cheaper solution than re-starting F-22 production.

Tend to disagree here. 1.) The F-22A today is not the same aircraft it was in 2005. Same is ofcourse true for other types. 2.) The US Congress blocked the sale of the F-22. There were interested nations like Japan, they were willing to pay, but weren't allowed to buy. 3.) F-22 production was killed by R. Gates and to help the struggling F-35 programme. Unit Flyaway price of the F-22 was around 130 mln $ by the time production was discontinued. LRIP F-35s were more expensive than that and F-35s are only relatively cheap today after an enormous amount of money was thrown at the programme and hundreds of airframes being built. 4.) Restarting F-22 production today would be uneconomic and with hintsight of the NGAD makes little sense anyway.

I think you don't understand. They never said to make a 2005ish variant of the aircraft (which would equate to Block 2 IOC standard). So asking for something that they may not even make is somewhat mood. At this point in time we simply don't know what we'll get. At best we can guess that with Meteor, Tranche 2 standard tactical codes and cockpit layout we are going to get a Tranche 2 aircraft at undefined capability standard. Yes Meteor is only available with P2E, but I doubt we will get much more than Meteor. The rest will likely be a kind of earlier T2 capability standard, maybe mixed with some elements from newer, but also older standards dependent on the information they can find about the aircraft and the individual systems.

At no point in time it was ever announced what particular build standard/capability standard they are going to develop. On contrary they explicitely state that it will be a "Frankenstein" configuration of the aircraft that has no real world equivalent! What they otherwise say is that for EARLY ACCESS the aircraft will be limited to AA only, many people misinterpret this statement as "they are going to start with an early Tranche 1 standard aircraft (which is relative anyway given the numerous Blocks, Sub-Blocks and PSCs/SRPs related to Tranche 1). All that it means is that not all features are available from day 1, that's what early access is all about, you get access to a work in progress product that will take a while until it's fully developed. That concept isn't new for DCS, but for the Eurofighter in particular people magically invent an "it will be this or that standard".

Or maybe it was simply a reaction to the almost daily asked, "any news", "is it still alive" and "we want updates" requests from the community. A bone thrown so that the barking dogs are happy for a while.

Allow me to explain my position a little bit more clearly here. You are ofcourse right that you cannot simply inject your knowledge about classified stuff into a public consumer product, but you can help and guide the developers and as is the case with True Grit reach out to the authorities (manufacturer and operators) and discuss and negotiate what can be presented in the public consumer product like an DCS aircraft module. If you have a clue about the subject matter it's also somewhat easier to make sense of material that you can find out there in the public domain. We are not talking about magic here at all. The general principles of how a hydraulic system, fuel system, radar etc. works is physics and you can obtain that knowledge from public sources. There are certainly aspects that you'll don't find, but just because there are some details missing doesn't mean you can't create a decent simulation of something. It's an unrealistic expectation to have a 100% accurate representation of such an aircraft and its systems in a public consumer flight simulator, produced for entertainment purposes anyway. The stance of "if it's not 100% right it must not be done at all" is something that I don't agree with and as outlined above it's simply an unrealistic expectation anyway. The eternal naysaying, doubting etc. isn't going to help the developers and is in my humble opinion discouraging and counter productive. If these doubts furthermore come from people who haven't performed hundreds or even thousands of hours in research, who don't even grasp how such technologies work in the first place and who couldn't even tell whether something is realistically implemented or not, I have little understanding for these eternal, ever repetitive complaints and doubts. Ofcourse you are free to doubt and question everything, but as said it's not going to help. I can perfectly live with with some omissions, if the end product is overall realistic and not a pure fantasy product. There is much more known about this aircraft than you and many others here think and the aircraft isn't that new either. We have seen aircraft being decently simulated before which have not been in service for that long as the Eurofighter is now. What you'll certainly not see is the latest and greatest build standard of the aircraft, even if some advanced features might be included. Same has been true for other aircraft that are also still in service as well, but that's surprisingly overlooked and ignored over and over again.

I haven't participated and replied to all threads as such... This question is the most often debated in addition to the never ending "when will it be released" and "is there any news" questions. Argueably they are first and foremost inflationary raised on HB's official Discord, but have been raised here several times. That being said, True Grit is still involved, but mainly for the licences with ED and NETMA etc. and as SMEs. They apparently underestimated the effort and have reached an agreement with HB to take over the development part. HB agreed, but has it's own projects going and priorities. TG was solely founded to bring the Eurofighter to DCS, HB had the F-4E as it next priority when it took over in addition to the further development and support for its existing modules. Unsurprisingly this meant development of the Eurofighter would take longer and got a slot in the cue after the F-4E. That's the reason why it's taking so long. It was TG to announce the Eurofighter, HB wouldn't have made that at that point in time. People often complain, but never bother to check the facts. Concerning the "it's oh so modern bla bla", the Eurofighter is actually one of the better documented aircraft compared to many others and it's not that much more advanced than evolved F-16s or F/A-18s either, it's doable and when there is also support from the operators/manufacturers (True Grit manages the licences and agreements and consists of a bunch of former GAF pilots) there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to produce a believeable, authentic representation of the real aircraft. Yes there will be omissions, but that's actually true for all aircraft, even older. Furthermore many people talk about in-service aircraft, guess what many modern aircraft incl. JF-17, A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C are all "still in service" and even they aren't 100% accurate on all accounts. Most people can't even tell the difference, but babble about it all day long and fill forum pages, chats etc. with their unqualified nonsense and wikipedia "knowledge". Let them do their job and be patient.

The nth user, the nth thread the nth repetition of the same doubts, concerns... Boring

Soon tm?

If you can't find it then it's probably not supposed to be out for public consumption...

So to speak yes. It's also referred to as data adaptive scanning (DAS).

Captor-M doesn't really support mode interleaving. I can imagine that some people may have concluded that from AA ATCK and AS ATCK formats being simultaneously selected, but the attack format isn't a radar only display. It's a fused display format optimised for attack operations. Concerning Priority Track, it's a submode of TWS. As soon as tracks are designated as targets for engagement, priority track ensures that the designated targets are updated at a higher rate and tracked, even if they move out of the designated search volume, as long as they stay within the gimbal limits.

Isn't that video more than a year old? I wouldn't give to much on it. But yes cancellation can always happen, for whatever reason. Let's hope it will not be the case here. Would be the second one after the VEAO one. Five and a half years waiting, blown up. Since then another 7 years have passed and the HB/TG one was first announced 4 1/2 years ago. Accumulative 12 years of waiting for a DCS EF. Add another 15 years or so waiting for a decent EF sim after DID's EF2000. I'm growing old.

Let's phrase it this way. Each Block standard has a defined delivery configuration, comprising the physical design of the aircraft, the equipment hardware and the software hosted on the electronic equipment. For service use electronic hardware and software combinations need to be qualified, to ensure that no incompatibility ensues between hardware and software. These cleared electronic hardware/software configurations are described by Production System Configurations (PSC) and are the most precise expression of aircraft capabilities. In the Eurofighter programme it is common practise that earlier Block standards are upgraded to new PSCs by installing the new/upgraded hardware and installing the respective software. As said there are cleared configurations and devations are not allowed to maintain equipment compatibility. Non-PSC related changes are introduced as needed. A Block 1 aircraft at PSC 3.31 for example is identical to a Block 5 aircraFt at PSC 3.31, from a pilot's perspective. Differences in non-PSC hardware are more a concern for maintenance (for example a different skin panel configuration, or how the wires are routed internally etc). The T1 fleet is largely unified in this respect, but it's evolution has been rather limited as many operators plan to retire their T1s, or are already in the process of doing this. At least the RAF and the GAF have already retired many T1s and there aren't too many left. T2 and T3 are more uniform in terms of PSCs, but have likewise been updated as described above for T1s. Some fit, form and functionaly equivalent equipment has been qualified for use on T1 aircraft, confessing a new PSC. But some equipment cannot be readily used onboard T1s, without some airframe modifications. As not all aircraft can be upgraded from one day to another you naturally have aircraft at different PSC standards and sometimes their differences are minor and sometimes they are major. For example the P1E, P2E etc. standards all entail dedicated PSCs and there are some sub-configurations available. It's up to the operators to decide which specific standards are employed operationally. What you will not see in reality as such is a kind of T1/T2 hybrid. The way it is described in the Heatblur FAQ is not entirely accurate that way, but it's arguably hard to describe and there are other aircraft in DCS where features from different standards of that aircraft are simulated and you'll not find an exacting equivalent in the real world. Apart from those in the know, most people will not notice this anyway, so it's not really a concern and what matters, at least to me, is that the representation of the ircraft is overall believeable and not grossely off.