Spectre11

In theory yes, question is whether DCS can model this and if not yet, whether it will be modeled in the future.

As ECM simulation in DCS is crude anyway, it might be more the kind of visual gimmick, maybe enabling the jamming function when deployed and maybe even increased effectivness, when combined with onboard jamming.

The real aircraft wasn't feature complete from day one either. Given the complexity a progressive evolution might be helpful for the learning curve, especially for those not familiar with the Typhoon.

I was of the impression that the J-11A was the license built version of the Su-27SK, with the Russian built airframes being designated as J-11 without "A". Only retrospectively the aircraft received upgrades.

Maybe they will hold back, just to prove you wrong.

575x575 pixels A visual feedback would be less distracting I guess. Like on the touch screen of smartphones, some waterdrop like symbology. Maybe only actioning the touch when the finger leaves the surface, to allow for corrections, in case you missed the right spot at the first time. Enlarged screens will surely help and maybe some HOTAS support as well.

PANAVIA und Eurofighter GmbH sind Industriekorsortien die als Hersteller der jeweiligen Luftfahrzeugmuster fungieren. Die NETMA ist praktisch das Pendant auf Seite der Nationen und repräsentiert die Interessen der beteiligten Luftstreitkräfte, so wie EF und PANAVIA die beteiligten Luftfahrtunternehmen repräsentieren. Sowohl die NETMA, als auch PANAVIA könnten intervenieren. Am Ende muss man die NETMA wahrscheinlich sogar höher gewichten, denn ohne das Geld, das über die NETMA fließt, gäbe es weder den EF, noch den TOR.

There are Blocks in the Eurofighter programme, but blocks aren't the same as for US aircraft. They represent a particular physical build standard. The PSC is the most accurate description of an aircraft's capabilities. I've attempted to describe all of this here.

The LWR isn't, the TD is.

Flight Models are typically lift, drag, side forces driven and you can tune that to match performance charts. They will surely be able to produce an FM that's close enough. It could even be accurate without you haps knowing. Despite all the "charts available", there is a constant tweaking and changing of FMs for various aircraft and then you have all those discussions about this FM is better than that etc. Quite often it seems to come from people with no actual experience.

Ich übersetze mal Grob den Post aus dem englischsprachigen Post. Den Throttle unabhängig von Detend Settings über den gesamten Bewegungsspielraum kalibrieren Die Detends am Throttle in der gewünschten Position für Leerlauf (idle) und Nachbrenner (afterburner) anbringen. Prüfen bei wieviel Prozent der Throttle steht wenn er nun am Detend ist. Im Bsp. ist er bei 14%. In der Virpil Software dann folgende Eistellungen vornehmen (ausgehend vom 14% Beispiel): Axis 1 idle setting 10-13%, button 125 Axis 1 fuel cutoff setting 0-3%, button 126 Axis 2 idle setting 10-13%, button 127 Axis 2 fuel cutoff setting 0-3%, button 128 In der Virpil software musst Du dann auf den Buttons Reiter gehen und die phyischen Buttons 125-128 logischen Buttons zuweisen, im Beispiel, siehe Bild, sind das 65-68. Siehe den roten Rahmen rechts im Bild wie das dann aussieht. Falls diese Buttons von DCS nicht erkannt werden sollten, solltest Du ggf. 4 Buttons mit den logischen Nummern unter 65 (z.B 61-64), statt der im Beispiel gezeigten zuweisen. Im Controller Setup musst Du dann die Funktionen wie im Bild unten für idle und cutoff einstellen. Danach wählst Du die Achseneinstellung und passt die Kurve so an, dass sie bei der Detendposition an Deinem Throttle bei null steht. Im Beispiel entspricht das 15% der Throttle position. Somit hast Du dann noch etwas Spiel. Danach passt Du dann das obere Ende der Achse auf die gleiche Weise an Deinen Afterburner Detend an.

Ist es wirklich notwendig für jede Frage, die Du zu diesem Throttle hast, ein neues Thema zu starten? Insbesondere wenn sich das Problem dann kurze Zeit später von alleine erledigt.

GT1 was returned to the Luftwaffe in December 2015, after 12 years and is flying for TLG73 (the GAF OCU). It was the last German T1 to be cycled through the R2 program. Main issue was that the aircraft was delivered to the GAF ground training establishment at Kaufbeuren, before it was formally accepted.

I mean to remember that it was along the lines of greater maneuverability at low speeds. The video is quite old.

People should get beyond the point believing that any aircraft is "undefeatable". Different aircraft have different strengths and weaknesses, if exploited properly the one doing this is going to win the fight. Brief video sequences without any particular context mean little as well. It certainly lets get enthusiasts excited when suposedly superior A/C X is in the crosshairs of suposedly inferior A/C Y.

The purpose of the enlarged flaperons is to counteract the pressure point shift due to the LEX and delta strakes. Increased roll authority is a partial byproduct of the flaperons increased size, as well as the energised airflow over the wings. The flaperons themself do not lower the approach speed as the flaperons are not used as flaps to assist during takeoff and landing, as is the case with tailed designs. The main point of the AMK is to increase the stability at higher AoAs and to address the deficiencies of the basic design in that area. The FCS imposed AoA limit currently limits the max lift, the airframe is capable of generating more lift, but the current limit prevents this and is as such limiting ITR performance, in addition to nose pointing authority and low speed maneuverability.

I still have good memories of that sim. Certainly one of the most realistic sims of its time, albeit it was graphically a bit behind the curve without any sort of texture mapping. The sim itself was great however, and I liked the ability to employ PGMs as well. The mission editor was quite good as well for its time.

Just to bust the common myth, Typhoon was conceived as a multirole platform from day one, but a phased approach to capability insertion was pursued and the aircraft was scheduled to enter service in a pure airdefence configuration, introducing A/G capabilities through software updates and the appropriate A/G weapons clearances. Priorities have changed over time and A/G has become more important, but that's it. All T1s were AG capable from SRP 4.1 onwards, but only the RAF exploited it and expanded on it with SRP 4.2. A closer look at the cockpit render unveils you'll get a T2/3 Typhoon and the promo video with the aircraft carrying Meteor implies the same... @Cobra847 maybe you can make my thread Eurofighter Typhoon facts and myths FAQ sticky again, as it was in the former TrueGrit channel. Should help to answer some general questions with regard to the programme and the aircraft.

Generation labeling is largely mood. What is primarily driving combat effectiveness and capability are the avionics, sensors, weapons etc. Many designs still in service and in production as of today originate from the 1970s/1980s, but if you compare todays F-15EX, F-16 Blk 70 etc. to their ancistors from the 1970s all they have in common is the designation and general aerodynamic design. Everything else is leaps and bounds ahead. We have seen generations of cockpit display, computers, radars etc. being integrated over the past 40 years. To put an F-15A into the same generation as an F-15EX is ridiculous. It could be said that there has been a new generation every 10-15 years. And yes the evolution was progressive rather than interruptive.

You'll certainly have a duplex redundancy as per the F-35 LAD. The charm of the big displays is window capability and therefore variable format sizes commensurate with increased sensor resolutions and dependent on prevailing tactical situations.

Yes that's not a lot, but an exotic tanker asset that has been operated by whom exactly, apart from the RAF? We don't have a single RAF operated fast jet in DCS as a flyable aircraft and even the Eurofighter will be the German version. And yet you ask for a dedicated RAF operated AI asset. I think that such requests are better placed with the community or ED, rather than asking already highly loaded development teams for flyable aircraft modules to develope this or that AI assets as supplementary.

I wonder why there is such a fixation on AI Tanker assets. Ofcourse it would be nice to have a tanker for every country's airforce, but it's a bit of a stretch and I don't think it needs one thread per tanker "wish". We are awaiting a complex flyable aircraft module which is still in the making and yet everyone is already asking for more...

Programme language is English and everything is therefore in English in the cockpit, irrespective of the operator.

PIRATE is actually designed and developed by a trinational industry consortium (EUROFIRST) comprising Leonardo from Italy and UK and IIRC Indra from Spain. Leonardo Italy is the primary supplier for the equipment. As part of the overall weapon system integration, AIRBUS Germany is the system and equipment design responsible and BAES the installation design authority.

As said, manage your expectations. Gero also made it clear that everything depends on the license holder, accessability and availability of data etc. We'll likely get a P1E like Typhoon with Meteor and maybe some selected elements from the newer P2E/P3E standards and possibly also elements from the older SRP2/4/5 standards whatever is available for different aspects of the aircraft and its systems.