Spectre11

Keep in mind that Heatblur basically adopted a policy of announcing modules only, if it's relatively mature and not too far away from release. The Eurofighter is an exception here as it was launched by True Grit and announced early. The collaboration came over a year after the Eurofighter was announced. That's probably the reason why you don't read/hear much, if anything about it.

Yes the FLIR button overlays the FLIR video image to the HUD, if the FLIR is installed. If the FLIR is not installed pressing that button has no effect, that's the case in German aircraft. Btw it's not an UFC. The equivalent to the UFC is the MDEF which is located on the left glareshield.

1.) I doubt you'll find any official source clearly confirming what you claim. That's more than evident by your poor reasonig that follows with your examples. Ofcourse you are free to interpret statements the way you like, but that doesn't turn them into facts. It's pure speculation on your part here. Let's take a closer look at your examples. A) Diehl is the manufacturer and lead designing company for the IRIS-T missile. It's not the manufacturer of Typhoon's DASS or MAWS. The IRIS-T is a multinationally developed missile, used by various different platforms. Diehl states that the IRIS-T seeker can target missiles (fact). That's it! No proof or confirmation that the DASS onboard the Typhoon can provide the relevant targeting information to cue the missile. So plain speculation on your part. B) BAES presentation on Striker I talking about the detection of aircraft and NCTR by what sensors precisely? C) Difensa talking about NCTR by DASS, ever though about enabling the sensor fusion part of DASS to feed emitter identity into fused sensor tracks... D) NATO Standard on IFF implementation with Ka Band radars proves what exactly? You deduce from mm wave band (of which the Ka band is just a fraction) for the MAW and a NATO standard on IFF implementation with Ka band radars is a hard proof for Typhoon MAWS IFF capabilities? What a stretch...

The term Captor-M was coined when the Captor-E AESA radar emerged to distinguish the meachanically scanning version from the electronic scanning which. That's done indiscreminately irrespective of whether we are talking about the Tranche 1 (Captor-C) and the Tranche 2 (Captor-D) radar standards. In all official documentation I have seen thus far, the terms Captor-C or -D aren't even used. It's always T1 or T2 radar.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but nothing of what you said is true. The MAW is what its name implies, not more not less. Dunno where you chaps get such fantasy super capability attributes for the aircraft's equipment.

That's not really the case. Captor-M is a generic term for the mechanically scanned version and equally apploes to the Tranche 1 and 2 radar standards, aka Captor-C and D. The primary difference between these two radar standards was the processor albeit other LRIs have been upgraded as well, also for Tranche 3. There is typically no discrimination between T2/3 radar standards as earlier hardware is brought up to the same standard. The same cannot be said for the T1 radar, albeit some T2 radar LRIs have been retro qualified to be used in conjunction with the old processor.

Meteor has no terrain following capability, end of discussion.

Indeed the systems coding is certainly the most work intensive and time consuming task, not that the 3D models for the aircraft and it's cockpit are simple.

Indeed you'll never be able to please everybody. Great where the times when developers of sims produced their interpretation and vision of aircraft in the 90s and there was not a myriad armchair generals, desktop wannabe pilots complaining all day long about everything they disliked. I find it kind of disrespectful and discouraging how some people here behave. Maybe they should look for other hobbies, or do it better themselves.

An update does not necessarily mean to state x percent complete, or release date XY. It could simply be some new WIP images, or an update on what's done or what they are working on at the moment.

That's all old stuff. Not saying it's impossible and different options are being weighed as part of LTE, whether we'll see a thrust increase or rather an increased power offtake for increasing electrical power without sacrifising thrust.

When they get implemented with the respective avionic system functions yes.

The WIP screenshots show the T2/3 standard cockpit layout. That doesn't tell you what particular capability standard we'll get. Could be anything between SRP 5.0 and P2Eb. Likely something in between, with elements from here and there. The main differences between the T1 and T2/3 cockpit layouts are the external light switches, laser arm and the system mode display panel (IFF and MIDS).

I'd say that this is a general problem with regard to sensor performance in any computer game produced for the public consumer market. Be it radar, IRST, RWR, ECM performance or whatever. The underlying algorithms are design engineering data that are typically not available either. I sometimes wonder what some people here expect from a game... Join the airforce or industry and get a job to fly the real thing. If you can't, or don't want then accept that flying such aircraft in a commercial flight simulator produced for entertainment purposes always come with strings attached.

A 3D model is one thing, implementing the sensor from a simulation point of view another thing. That's not to say it's going to happen or not, but keep in mind that a German variant of the aircraft is thus far planned to be developed which has no IRST/FLIR. If at a later time other nations' aircraft will be covered as well this may change, but if I hazard a guess here it will take a lot of time considering EA and subsequent development of all features, before we can really expect variants thereof.

PSCs pretty much tell you what a given aircraft can do. Tranches do not, as they are plain production contracts only. The PSC is the most specific and precise expression of aircraft capability. Aircraft at the same PSC provide the same capabilities. The other differences are things like, this or that panel modification, frame reinforcement, loom change and the like being embodied or not. This is stuff that isn't driving aircraft capability as such. If a wing/squadron operates a mix of aircraft at different PSCs it will ofcourse leave the impression of a non unified fleet, because it isn't. If a pilot flies aircraft X with PSC A and aircraft Y with PSC A it won't make a difference for him. If he switches to aircraft Z with PSC B it will make a difference, as PSC B will offer different functionalities and capabilities. I have explained the relationships in the facts & myths thread in this channel, providing a top level view of how the programme is managed in terms of capabilities and standards.

Which is not entirely true. Aircraft of a particular Block are build to the same standard, have the same systems, equipment and software at the time of delivery. Thereafter aircraft receive modifications designed and cleared for specific tailnumber ranges (effectively defining the applicable Block ranges). As far as avionics, FCS etc. is concerned, both in terms of hardware and software you have precisely defined standards, known as PSC. Aircraft at a given PSC provide the same level of functionality and capability. So no it's not like one aircraft has radar software this, DASS software that etc. Aircraft at the same PSC are identical as described above, they might differ at a level that's not driving capabilities as is evident to a pilot. Ofcourse not every aircraft receices the same modifications at the same time and while three aircraft may have been delivered at the same standard, it might be that they are differing at a given point in time as some modifications have been implemented or not.

I'd suggest, stop speculating. There will be a commuication in the future to tell you what standard of aircraft will be simulated. And yes it may include some elements from different capability standards, so it will be somewhat "Frankenstein" for sure.

Back end is a relative term here. Processor and receiver of the Mk0 are backwards compatible, but the software is different. So you can exchange these hardware components, but you must load a different software. The rest of the AESA is completely different and there is a bit more about it than just the radar itself. Overall weapon system integration is not exactly the same.

Janes F/A-18 already implemented MSI to a certain extend 2 decades ago!

Certainly not, but it isn't a show stopper.

Which would be enough though. The public figures of 80 nm are exaggerated anyway and aren't being achieved in any real conditions anyway.

This was in support of the Swiss trials in November 2008, where GT15 and IPA3 participated. PIRATE was removed in 2010 IIRC, probably when scheduled maintenance was due. When it proves on thing it is that PIRATE is retrofirable to any Typhoon, if required.

Plus Saab BOL-510 Chaff dispensers, modified BOL-IR and the Ariel Towed Radio Frequency Decoys. The flares itself are not programmable, but it's possible to fit different types of flares and the dispenser can distinguish itself between the flares and use the appropriate type in automated counter measures programmes.

I know that HOJ exists already, but is it possible to move the jammer to a distance from the aircraft? I think only ED could answer this question, or 3rd party devs developing offboard jammers. I know GEN X is planned or have it been implemented and is working already?