Spectre11

There is a difference between theory and reality. In theory even an AMRAAM with a uni-directional link could be guided by another aircraft if specific pre-requisites are met. That doesn't mean it's a capability actually exploited or even technically implemented, albeit it's theoretically possible.

Manage your expectations gentlemen. The E-Scan comes with capability standards that have yet to be introduced operationally and which involve more than the AESA radar itself. It's a bit of a stretch to believe that you'll see the Radar in DCS any time soon, if ever.

The article didn't state that the missile was guided by the 2nd aircraft. The 2nd aircraft simply tracked the target with its radar and shared the track with the first one. The 1st one used the track data supplied to target the track and launch an AMRAAM against it.

You need to update all affected installation drawings, design documents, data bases etc. to introduce the sensor on German aircraft from a design configuration perspective. You need to extend the applicability of the associated logistic data and documentation etc. You potentially need to procure special tooling and support equipment, dependent on the maintenance level. You may need to create facilities for storage and maintenance of the equipment of aircraft. You need to train personnel for pacaking and transportation, for on aircraft maintenance and inspection tasks and possibly off aircraft LRI repair and testing. You need to obtain the clearance from the national airworthiness authorities to install and operate the equipment and much more. It's not just an buy some sensors beam them by magic onto the aircraft and everyone knows how to deal with it. There is a rat tail entailed to the introduction of a new complex electronic equipment, even if it's already being used by other operators. The effort and penultimately costs required must not be underestimated! And yes it would be nice to see the sensor on the jet, agreed. Unfortunately it is a cost driver that fell victim when cost savings were seeked.

Centre mass in this case means multiple closely spaced IR sources and the seeker opts for the centroid. Similar to two engine exhausts and the missile aiming for the centre in between. Any halfway modern missile probably features algorithms to discern between right and false targets. For an IRIS-T the aircraft must tell it to look for aircraft, or ground targets. Simply fitting the missile isn't enough, even if previously integrated. The missile itself can be manually targeted as well, without support from an aircraft sensor.

The "U" is the station unit itself (part of the Armament Control System), you can call it interface between the A/C and the stores carrier. The pylons, racks are part of the Armament Carriage and Installation System, which are the pylons racks etc. The ITSU carries the ITSPL, the FSUs the MEL or DMMEL (Dual-Mode Missile Eject Launcher). Then you have the 6 wing pylon station units and the centre line station. At the moment only ADHERU (heavy weapon rack) are used for A/S weapons carriage or LDP carriage on the centre and inboard wing pylons as well as the centreline. The ALDERU light weapon rack is currently used on the outboard wing stations only, but I think they should fit on the centre and inboard pylons as well. The MFRL or Twin Missile Carrier is directly fitted to the ALDERU. The TMC is not cleared though, neither is the Twin Stores Carrier (TSC) for A/S weapons. There have been some 20 years old images or so showing DA7 with a BL-755 dummy load on TSCs fitted to the inboard stations.

In theory it should be possible to fit dual-rail launchers on all wing stations, except for the ITSU. In practise you have only the ITSU, outboard wing pylons and the FSUs for a total of 8 AAMs.

PIRATE was considered, but again become a victim to cost cuts. It's not just about procuring the equipment itself, but all the support you need to service and maintain the equipment comes on top. Trials aircraft as part of the contract will likely be equiped with PIRATE. The sensor is somewhat overhyped anyway.

It's more about political decision making. It's not the Luftwaffe saying we don't want PIRATE.

Litening 3 like everyone else, albeit the RAF has integrated the Litening V already. Export customerd use the Damocles (Saudis) and Sniper (Kuwait & Qatar).

Doubtful that LAD and Mk2 will be on P3Ec jets. We'll see.

Aircraft are often rotated between the wings when they run through the MRO at Manching.

If it's the German Eurofighter the sole AG weapon currently in use is the GBU-48 EPW II with dual-mode guidance. Gun apart...

I said simimiar, not identical...

Guys you are too fixated on Tranches. The German T4 A/C will be similar to the Kuwaiti Typhoons. You'll neither see AMK nor PIRATE on these A/C. The AMK is linked to the Phased Enhancement Programmes. It's not yet selected or contracted at all. P4E will likely be the earliest point of embodiment, if there is no further step beyond P3Ec. As of now 38 T4 A/C have been ordered under project Quadriga for T1 replacement. Potentially 40 A/C + 15 ECR might be oredered under the Tornado Replacement programme, but that's not fix yet at all.

There is no "thrust boost" switch available. Ofcourse you could adjust TBT limits to either increase or decrease thrust, but it's not like being a pilot selectable functionality.

Captor-M is a generic term, where M denotes M-Scan. No one is using the terms Captor-C or D anymore. The former is T1, the later is T2 onwards.

Just some quick notes on "Tranche" and PIRATE. 1.) PIRATE is only fitted to German IPAs which support the international test and evaluation programmes. 2.) You already got the clue about Meteor being part of the package. That should answer the "Tranche" part. Check out the " Eurofighter Typhoon Facts and Myths FAQ" thread's opening post for more details and a better understanding og what is in where.

It's simple math. One full 1000 l tank equates to around 950 kg of weight dependent on the actual fuel density. That's equivalent to a Mk84 2000 lb class store. You already have notable load limit restrictions with 1000 lb class stores like Mk83 and derived stores and that's approx. a half full tank... don't expect a 9 g capability with much more than maybe 10% of fuel left. Everything else is wishful thinking.

The weight of an empty 1000 l SFT is similar to that of an AMRAAM...

IIRC there have been a number of hints about 9 g capability with tanks attached (at various airshows for example). That's only true if the tank isn't full, but at least near to empty.

The question has been answered before. The limits are dynamically adapted.

Load limits are dependent on various factors like A/C weight, CG, load limits og individual store stations etc. You have max limits and dependent on the fuel state, store symetries etc. you have limits which are closer or further away from the max. limit.

Be assured the team is alive, work progresses and an update should not be too far away.

I don't think that you disagree with me at all, you are just looking at it from a different perspective and from the perspective you are looking from I agree. At the end you'll nonetheless need to learn the ins and outs both in terms of MMI, system performance/capabilities and plain A/C performance/handling characteristics.