Kev2go

Tranche 2 block 8 nope, but block 10 yes.

thats reassuring to know, So even if we got a pre block 5 a2a version only it should still beexpected to have IRIS-T.

and this is why you always plant a couple SAM's to defend your home airfield. Just in case you "forget" about any AI assets in case they decide to follow you back to home. so situation like these never happen.

Just to clarify Luftwaffe were already using IRST ( missile) by the time of Tranche 1 block 5? Since the Uk version already had thier own contemporary : Aim132's by then.

AS long as it has LGB , Litening TGP, IRIST ( the missile ) and/ or AIm132 ( if RAF version also come about), Il be more than happy. Not sure if RAF only had precision A/G that early on or if Luftwaffe version also had A/G capability with block 5.

Only if it wasn't coming to DCS.....

Seems Wiki is wrong on this one. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4261104&postcount=9 I think its safe to say we can take his word on it. Even doing my own digging, i have found some publications myself from 2005 ( which is pre block 5) there is already AIm120 references. Someone also made a thread of EF features https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=267730

Honestly the idea of "one aircraft has a label of CAS, and the other is multi-role and therefore it must be assumed the one with the CAS label must be assumed to be better than multirole " is malarkey. Certainly in this case when comparing Harrier to Hornet. The only advantage the harrier has in CAS to the F/A18 is that it can deploy from an LHA or a FOB with a helipad or small landing strip thus being potentially closer to the front lines , however in situations its limited landing/takeoff space requires smaller fuel quantity, and a minimal bomb load. So such a harrier will have very limited station time unless it hits the tankers and not much payload to support troops on the ground. Otherwise, it doesn't possess any advantages in cas when the Hornet can use the same weapons (and then some). The harriers fuel consumption is still pretty high for a subsonic jet and on max internal fuel you only get 7,700 lbs of fuel. You wont be VTOl with max internal fuel, and external stores, let alone with external fuel tanks strapped in. IN comparison with 1 bag of external fuel a Hornet driver can still take a cheek TGP, and take 8 bombs and stay aloft longer than a harrier can ( if you need the range. If you dont, then drop the bag and thats 2 extra bombs). The harrier can only exceed the Hornets payload if its has the necessary length for a conventional take off ( and thats only with conventional bombs). ANd then it handles very sluggishly. NOt that it matters in DCS but IRL the harrier is also more expensive per hour of flight than the Hornet. Really the Harriers a unique due to VTOL/STOL capability but that is a novelty feature to proclaim it better at CAS to the Hornet. What is really necessary to really stand out for CAS are what the A10 has. Long loiter time, and a large payload. The large degree of systems redundancy is a cherry on top. Depending on who you ask in the USMC, some think the harrier was a mistake. Its expensive, It more dangerous to fly, its impractical, and it combat range/loiter time is even worse than the Hornet's. Luckily a mistake that can be rectified today with the F35B which also is a multi-role fighter, and not a novelty subsonic attack jet.

do they? I mean even in the WIP photos we see a luftwaffe skin EF carrying some Aim120. The Germans were already using AIm120's with their F-4F ICE's.

you dont need a TGP to independently sling IR mavericks. The hornet got mavericks before it got a TGP.

well its hard to say which tranche and block will be give, but tranche block 5 was already operational and flying ADF missions in nato starting in 2007 and by 2008 the UK declared initial A/G capability for the block 5. Germans began an retrofit program to being up earlier blocks to tranche 5 standards. Not sure when thiers went operational. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/79011/eurofighter-wins-type-acceptance-for-block-5-standard.html https://defense-update.com/20090801_typhoon-eurofighter.html

:D

Memes ahoy

and whats so uneasy about the missile alone? they can decide to choose their own way to integrate the missile. IN a digital era it really is not hard to make a munition compatible as long as pylon is the same MIL standard of serial data bus, and then if nessary designing your own software interface for a particular weapon mode. The EF already can use us missiles like Aim9 and Aim120. they also have MIDS/Link 16 which is a US designed datalink pushed to be NATO standard. They already accepted those into operation. I get nukes are more touchy, Why is B61 so important? lobbing tactical nukes is kinda of redundant in era of guided standoff munitions, and especially with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its not easy to penetrate modern air defenses without stealth. trying toss lob a nuke requires flying nearly right on top of your intended target. Canada for eg is part of NATO but has decided to scrap any nuclear arsenal. With guided long range missiles and USA alone in nato having enough nukes to destroy earth 10 times over, on top off all that > it doesn't seem necessary. IS it really necessary to have a additional personal nuclear stockpile for national interests as long as your a NATO member?

F104 aint the best comparison as that is a much older aircraft design, and from a timeframe where avionics were analog. Back in those days you practically needed to have 2 separate A2A and A2G aircraft to be good at both roles BY todays standards it an old way of doing things, and certainly not efficient on more modest military budgets.

But the ECR is a 2 seater SEAD dedicated variant of EF. (its probably thier idea of a Growler). Its focus is not nuclear strike i dont see why as an interim they cant made a a deal with USA to sell them some AGM88's and integrate those in for some form of SEAD capability for the single seat. ( since UK no longer produces ALARM and the MOD in thier infinite wisdom decided to scrap them from inventory) If the older legacy platforms like F16 and Hornet have been able to do it all, why can't the EF being expanded on for additional versatility? Especially for nations with smaller defense budget.

So why cant they just use 1 aircraft to fill role of a2a and a2g? Like the UK has been doing? If it's just a matter of quantity, then just by more ef's. The ef is capable of multirole use. And I'm sure more weapon types could be integrated if needed. Operating 2 different aircraft where training and logistics s are not interchangable for two different roles isnt the most practical or cost effective

:D Read title above Tom cat crew: "oh look a EF, Bye il save you the trouble "press ctrl+e 3 times to eject" ? :P Ok kidding aside So what can we do when we meet this new bird of prey in the skies. The F14 already has some challenges due to not having the sort of up to date avionics of more newer gen 4 digital teen fighters. Sure with a very disciplined pilot can still beat hornet or Viper in BFM in 1 vs 1 guns only. But in most scenarios missiles engagement will be the first order of things. But considering the EF excellent performance characteristics and even more advanced sensors and EW suites relative to Viper and Hornet how will the tomcat fare, and can tactics be adjusted properly to have any real chance? It seems on paper the EF will be hands down the most lethal platform for A2A compared to anything else in DCS. Will same tactic in MP against hornets or vipers hold? IE keep distance when possible and spam AIm54's to maintain stand off range? ( since vipers and Hornets will typically you with 9x's when the get into visual without having to go maneuver directly onto your six) or will AIm54's start becoming redundant? will ECM suite and towed decoy finally put an end to aim54 domination, finally mitigating the tomcats standoff ranges?

Yes General purpose For the UK version but not German one apparently . As for self designation of LGB's with a TGP can the same be verified for Luftwaffe within the same time frame ?( which is the version being focused on for now). IT also depends on which time period the source publications or revisions are able to be found. as an Analogy Remember than F/A18C lot 20 in 1998 had different capabilities then the circa 2005 model we have in dcs, or if to compare hypothetical compare Lot 20 hornet to more recent timeframe , ( IE as an example only using older Litening 2 AT instead of newer Litening 2 G4 issued since 2008 )

I wonder how good the simulation will be of the EF Air to ground mapping qualities. I read that it has High resolution ( Not medium resolution) SAR

so tranche 1 just had a version earlier than AIm120C-5?

so what medium range radar missile did EF's use prior to the Aim120c-5 capability that got introduced with tranche 2?

The JF17 wasn't the most advanced jet. The only feature thats more advanced about the JF17 relative to F16/F18 is just larger cockpit displays and IR Missle warning system. otherwise the JF17 was behind in radar range ( max range at 80 NM relative to 160 Nm) and does not have JHMCS + AIm9X equivalents. IT also has smokey engine ( IRRC copy of mig29 engine) , and not as good T/W ratio as you'd expect for such a lightweight fighter. the EF ( especially if its tranche 2) will in fact be all around the most advanced and arguably best A2A platform in DCS.

Ok scratch out my assumptions with FAq out this is what we can expect. seems will be in fact luftwaffe EF with plans to expand and include versions of other nationaliteis eventually. although the FAQ states they wish to achieve the most current EF that they possibly can they don't outright state with tranche and block, but at least optimistically that means we certainly aren't getting the earliest , and this implies at it will at least be within tranche 2. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4260824&postcount=1 I just really hope that doing more modern tranches doesnt mean leaving certain systems blank or with half ****ed functionality. (IE A10C * cough cough *missing lots of SADL functionality, and being a franken hybrid of suite 3 and suite 5) I personally would rather get fully working earlier model, than a latest and greatest model but have dev's either told off by GOV't contract cutoff certain features due to consumer product , or be forced too much guesstimating where systems are classified. Given their confidence in being able to go with more recent iteration however i wish to remain optimistic.