Spectre11

Which didn't work properly, hence cancelled from the design before it was put into production. Striker II will hopefully resolve that issue a quarter century later.

Or maybe they simply make both available, or a mod enables it. Shouldn't be that diffocult.

It was tested along with the APA and the later was subsequently selected. There were some problems with the Libelle, that's why it was discontinued, at least for the Eurofighter.

The GPWS (TERPROM) is not specifically developed for A/S mission roles. It first and foremost provides ground proximity warnings and is a general terrain awareness tool, improving flight safety. As it had been on the Typhoon from day 1, it should also be part of the DCS EF module.

Stick travel limits are asymmetric, but haven't the values in my head. Control laws switch between rate, AoA and g-demand dependent on airspeed and A/C config.

I have marked the areas in red.

The most obvious difference is the System Mode Display Panel for the MIDS NET and IFF INT / XPDR status indicators on the right glareshield flap. Next one is the LASER ARM switch on the left side console and the controls for the external lighting system on the right side consoles.

Gentlemen, how often needs this to be repeated? Look at the screenshots and videos released so far, what can we see? 1.) German Airforce Eurofighters with tactical codes representing Tranche 2 standard aircraft. 2.) A Tranche 2/3 cockpit layout. 3.) The Meteor missile introduced on the Typhoon with the P2E capability standard, which is compatible with T2/3 aircraft. What has additionally been said by HB/TG? 1.) That the aircraft will be limited to AA at the beginning. Does it make it T1? No it doesn't, it simply means that systems functionality and weapons related to AG stuff will only be added after EA has started. 2.) That the capability standard reflected will be more a kind of "Frankenphoon", dependent on data/information availability certain system capabilities might reflect earlier, or later standards, in a combination that doesn't reflect any particular inservice standard. 3.) They may do other nations Typhoons, but I'm inclined to believe, that at least at the beginning you will have to live the the German variant with different liveries representing other operators. MARTE-ER anti-ship missiles are not integrated on the Typhoon yet either, images showing the aircraft on ground with these missiles doesn't change that. So no, MARTE-ER will almost certainly not be part of the HB DCS Eurofighter.

You still remain constraint by the mechanical gimbal compared to ESA. For best performance you still need to trade scan volume, but you at least have the choice and that's not true for any other MSA I'm aware of.

Doesn't matter, if the cockpit displays only support grey scale video imagery.

Good catch.

The airintake configuration plays an important role. The same engine may perform quite differently in different airframes. Just take a look at the Mach limits of the F/A-18, Tejas and Gripen, which are all powered by the F-404, not always the exactly same variant though. Same is true for the F-414 in the Gripen E/F vs Super Hornet. Or compare the Mach limits of F-100 or F-110 powered F-15s and F-16s. Differences in aerodynamics apart, the intake configuration is important and makes a huge difference. Many people falsley believe that the S-curved intakes on the Typhoon and other contemporary aircraft are for minimising the RCS, but that's only a side effect. The primary reason is to slow the air down to subsonic speeds before it hits the engine compressor. Engine pressure characteristics can thus be maintained at higher Mach numbers without complex moving ramps, nevertheless airframe heating, but also pressure recovery characteristics limit aircraft like the Typhoon to around Mach 2. In another airframe this might be different, positive and negative alike. You can find a reasonably accurate Mach/Altitude envelope graph for the Typhoon on the airpower.at website. From here yoj can deduce what Mach numbers are eligable at various altitudes and you will find out that the graph you posted doesn't match at all.

Looks ridiculous. More than twice the thrust at 10k, a massive jump from 8k to 10k and then down at 15k and another notable jump at 20k. That makes no sense.

To my knowledge mode interleaving isn't possible. You can still select the AA Attack forrmat while the radar is in an A/S mode, but the ATCK format is not a plain radar format. The high scan rates enable Captor to utilise max. search volumes in TWS. Other M-Scans have typically constrained search volumes in TWS compared search modes like RWS or VS.

Regard... Yes that's for the Captor-E. If your question was related to the stndard Captor-M it's 70 in Az and 60 in El.

With the WFoR repositioner it's 100°.

You probably mean that the beam can be electronically steered by that amount...

The Gentex ACS is the HGU-53, or a version of it. You are right that the RAF (and UK managed export customers) are using the Mk4 and Mk10 as alternatives. The GAF and, if I'm not mistaken, IAF use the HGU-55 for NVG, as the ACS isn't readily NVG capable.

DVI is operational on the aircraft, the NVE cameras are not. Big difference. You'll find a lot of photographs and videos where EF pilots wear normal helmets like HGU-53 or -55. The HMSS isn't always worn and most operators use NVGs in conjunction with normal (non-HMD) helmets. Consider the weight and balance issues related to HMSS and NVG.

The NVE cameras were tested, but didn't work satisfactorily. As a consequence these cameras were never fielded and operators are using conventional NVGs instead, mostly with standard helmets, like the HGU-55, or with modified HEA Mk2 (Striker I) helmets. The RAF in particular has modified the HEA with an adaptor on the head front to permit fitting of NVG. Striker II features a built in NV sensor, but isn't operationally employed yet. The NVG might nevertheless be part of the EF module, though.

GBU-54 might be an option. It's the dual mode version (LJDAM) of the 38 (JDAM). Edit: The GBU-38 isn't integrated yet, but the heavier GBU-31 has been integrated for Kuwait. As far as the avionic interface is concerned the GBU-31 and GBU-38 are identical. The -54 adds the laser option already available to the PW IV and GBU-48 (EGBU-16).

No there is no override function implemented. The FCS has been provisioned for g-override, but it isn't enabled, so if you pull the stick beyond the spring out forces nothing happens.

You'll notice from photographs and videos that there is enough clearance between the pilots head and the canopy. The barrel rolling is more the result of its pitch instability and the lateral forces that kick in while rolling and the FCS trying to compensate for this. This phenomen is somewhat less pronounced on later aircraft where the control laws have been further refined.

The ITR is limited because the AoA is limited to a point by which maximum lift cannot be exploited. The AoA limit and limiting roll authorities at higher AoAs serve the purpose to avoid the problem area where the aircraft tends to exceed the beta angle limits as airflows become too unstable. When the issues were discovered relatively late in the flight test programme the fix was to reduce the max AoA limit and roll rate at high AoA. This reduced the aircraft's maneuverability. The Eurofighter Enhanced Maneuverability programme (EFEM) was launched to address the shortfalls and the original strakes trialed onboard DA5 represented a first step. These wing apex strakes or LEX generate powerful vortices which energise the airflow over the wings, increasing total lift and delaying airflow separation at higher angles of attack. The stabilisation of the airflow allowed the AoA limit to be increased and the lateral/directional stability issues to be addressed. The AMK represents the next step, where the shape of the LEX is slightly altered and the fuselage strakes are changed in shape from almost rectangular to delta. Once again this helps to produce even more powerful vortices and combined with the LEX increases lift and stability. It also causes a forward shift of the pressure point aka lift centre. To compensate for this the flaperons were enlarged. A side effect of this is greater control authorities in the roll axis increasing the roll performance across the envelope. This in sum increases the nose pointing authority, maximum lift and thereby ITR. STR benefits to a certain extend due to the improvements in lift/drag ratio and the minimum speed is reduced translating into lower rotation and approach speeds during takeoff and landing. Roll performance is notably increased at higher AoA as the airflows are now much more stable at high AoA and roll rates.

Taurus is not integrated on the aircraft and the aircraft weapon interface is something you'll be hard pressed to find any usable information about. TG/HB wouldn't be serious if the implemented Taurus. GBU-54 is similar to the GBU-48 as far as the weapon/aircraft integration is concerned but it's not integrated yet either. It's not as much a stretch, as would be Taurus, or other weapons for that matter.