FAQ: VEAO Typhoon for DCS World

[tobaschi]

Whoaaahh don't let the "realism" boys hear you say this...go wash your mouth out with soap!! :pilotfly:

 

pc - "realism" - guys have two choices

 

the first one is to file a RAF application

the second one if you would implement such a option, to not activate it

[shagrat]

No ground capabilities is making me veeery sad.

The Eurofighter was planned as a formidable multirole platform.

It should be capable of fighting its way through a CAP and deliver a precision strike behind enemy lines.

If realism means we can't have Brimstone, Taurus, no ALARM, ok, sad bad managable.

Yet no air-ground capability other than dumb bombs, that is a big bummer!

It is not, that the Typhoon, was designed as an air-air platform, only.

The MiG-21bis has never dropped nukes, as far as I know, yet the capability is modeled in DCS, so it seems a capability is good enough for realisms sake.

 

Sorry, but this is a very emotional topic for me...

 

P.S. Pman did you check your PM? I still have a huge bunch of those DeHavilland Vampire DH.115 cockpit and instruments photos, if you guys want them... ;)

[Masch]

+1 shagrat

OMG!

[Xenovia]

i dont mind if i cant get Air to ground capability in the Eurofighter, thats not why i wanted it in the first place, if i wanted a multirole right off the bat, and go for the hornet only. HOWEVER i want the Eurofighter because of its AMAZING COCKPIT LAYOUT, amazing delta wing design, with a good user interface, and air to air capability so i can shoot down many of my enemies (F-15's).

Edited August 14, 2016 by Xenovia

[Pman]

No ground capabilities is making me veeery sad.

The Eurofighter was planned as a formidable multirole platform.

It should be capable of fighting its way through a CAP and deliver a precision strike behind enemy lines.

If realism means we can't have Brimstone, Taurus, no ALARM, ok, sad bad managable.

Yet no air-ground capability other than dumb bombs, that is a big bummer!

It is not, that the Typhoon, was designed as an air-air platform, only.

The MiG-21bis has never dropped nukes, as far as I know, yet the capability is modeled in DCS, so it seems a capability is good enough for realisms sake.

 

Sorry, but this is a very emotional topic for me...

 

P.S. Pman did you check your PM? I still have a huge bunch of those DeHavilland Vampire DH.115 cockpit and instruments photos, if you guys want them... ;)

 

Hmm I didn't see one, tbh I have hundreds I will have a look and get back to you, not intentional! :cry:

 

Pman

[Red Dragon-DK]

No ground capabilities is making me veeery sad.

The Eurofighter was planned as a formidable multirole platform.

It should be capable of fighting its way through a CAP and deliver a precision strike behind enemy lines.

If realism means we can't have Brimstone, Taurus, no ALARM, ok, sad bad managable.

Yet no air-ground capability other than dumb bombs, that is a big bummer!

It is not, that the Typhoon, was designed as an air-air platform, only.

The MiG-21bis has never dropped nukes, as far as I know, yet the capability is modeled in DCS, so it seems a capability is good enough for realisms sake.

 

Sorry, but this is a very emotional topic for me...

 

+1

 

I have been looking forward to fly this one in particular. Back in the 90 I was flying EF2000 and had a blast with the multirole platform.

If you decide not to do a true multirole platform with the Litening pod, I think I have enough aircraft in the hangar to do without this model. It will simply not meet my expectations to what I have expected and I would probably rather bet on F14 and F18 when they are released. Justifying it with realism, is not a valid reason in my optic.

 

Sorry :cry:

[mrsteel]

+1

 

I have been looking forward to fly this one in particular. Back in the 90 I was flying EF2000 and had a blast with the multirole platform.

If you decide not to do a true multirole platform with the Litening pod, I think I have enough aircraft in the hangar to do without this model. It will simply not meet my expectations to what I have expected and I would probably rather bet on F14 and F18 when they are released. Justifying it with realism, is not a valid reason in my optic.

 

Sorry :cry:

 

+1 Agreed, plus its air to air capabilities are a bit limited if it doesn't have a HMD. At least it has the AMRAAM and ASRAAM though.

[QuiGon]

[...]

The Eurofighter was planned as a formidable multirole platform.

[...]

 

That's not quite true. The Eurofighter has been planned and developed (during the 80s and 90s) as a strict air superiority fighter. Multirole capabilities haven't been an issue up to the 2000s.

[shagrat]

That's not quite true. The Eurofighter has been planned and developed (during the 80s and 90s) as a strict air superiority fighter. Multirole capabilities haven't been an issue up to the 2000s.

If that is true, how would an 90ies Simulation, like DIDs EF2000, accurately portrait the “unplanned“ ground capabilities? From Laser guided bombs, over SEAD with ALARM (2 of the 5 modes where in the sim), iron bombs and rockets...

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by shagrat

[QuiGon]

If that is true, how would an 90ies Simulation, like DIDs EF2000, accurately portrait the “unplanned“ ground capabilities? From Laser guided bombs, over SEAD with ALARM (2 of the 5 modes where in the sim), iron bombs and rockets...

 

 

Accurately? Where? I know this game has a lot of fans, but it's everything else than accurately. The armament alone is just a wild guess, not even mentioning the avionics. The ALARM has never been implemented in the Eurofighter and the same applies to the Maverick which is also in the game.

[shagrat]

Accurately? Where? I know this game has a lot of fans, but it's everything else than accurately. The armament alone is just a wild guess, not even mentioning the avionics. The ALARM has never been implemented in the Eurofighter and the same applies to the Maverick which is also in the game.

You claimed “ground capabilities“ where not planned in the 80ies/90ies...

If you read my post again, i explicitly stated “portrait“ not accurately simulated.

Keeping in mind the capabilities on 90ies Pentium PCs this was, what DCS is today...

 

Yet, the point was EF2000 as a 90ies game had the LGBs, Laser designation and ALARM (which was originally planned as a possible loadout), which were according to your statement planned “in the 2000“.

 

So either you are wrong, or the military was “inspired“ by the 90ies game and so impressed, they added all the ground weapons after playing?

 

My guess is, they did expand the EF2000 to multirole well in the late 80ies, early 90ies and had no problem, with a 90ies sim showing that capabilities, as they could not model them pretty accurate anyway.

 

On a side note, EF-2000 sim even had the S-225 SLRAAM that would later be known as Meteor missile, including the ramjet concept.

;)

[QuiGon]

You claimed “ground capabilities“ where not planned in the 80ies/90ies...

If you read my post again, i explicitly stated “portrait“ not accurately simulated.

Keeping in mind the capabilities on 90ies Pentium PCs this was, what DCS is today...

 

Yet, the point was EF2000 as a 90ies game had the LGBs, Laser designation and ALARM (which was originally planned as a possible loadout), which were according to your statement planned “in the 2000“.

 

So either you are wrong, or the military was “inspired“ by the 90ies game and so impressed, they added all the ground weapons after playing?

 

My guess is, they did expand the EF2000 to multirole well in the late 80ies, early 90ies and had no problem, with a 90ies sim showing that capabilities, as they could not model them pretty accurate anyway.

 

On a side note, EF-2000 sim even had the S-225 SLRAAM that would later be known as Meteor missile, including the ramjet concept.

;)

 

It seems to me, that they just implemented every weapon they could possibly think of, not matter what the real possibilities of its usage were. Some of the weapons became reality later, some did not. Hasn't much to do with the real development of the Eurofighter. ;)

[shagrat]

It seems to me, that they just implemented every weapon they could possibly think of, not matter what the real possibilities of their usage were. Some of the weapons became reality later, some did not. Hasn't much to do with the real development of the Eurofighter. ;)

...any facts? I mean, you flew that sim?

Talked to the devs? The military?

Anyone? Or just wild guessing?

 

To my knowledge, they had the consent of the consortium that built the Eurofighter.

They were allowed to model most weapons, planned for the final implementation in the 2020-30ies.

Most avionics are a rough presentation, yet general design and functionality aspects were, considering the era, pretty good.

The ALARM, was planned, as where a 3D-vectorthrust, towed decoys etc.

They simply dropped some things from the militaries whishlist for cost reasons mostly...

 

But back to topic. You claimed the Eurofighter was planned in the 80ies and 90ies as an air superiority fighter, only.

 

I say, it was already designed as a multirole jet in the 90ies.

 

Proof me wrong, but, please, do not divert with distractions about accuracy, and so on.

Edited August 15, 2016 by shagrat

[QuiGon]

...any facts? I mean, you flew that sim?

Talked to the devs? The military?

Anyone? Or just wild guessing?

 

To my knowledge, they had the consent of the consortium that built the Eurofighter.

They were allowed to model most weapons, planned for the final implementation in the 2020-30ies.

Most avionics are a rough presentation, yet general design and functionality aspects were, considering the era, pretty good.

The ALARM, was planned, as where a 3D-vectorthrust, towed decoys etc.

They simply dropped some things from the militaries whishlist for cost reasons mostly...

 

But back to topic. You claimed the Eurofighter was planned in the 80ies and 90ies as an air superiority fighter, only.

 

I say, it was already designed as a multirole jet in the 90ies.

 

Proof me wrong, but, please, do not divert with distractions about accuracy, and so on.

 

Alright, first off I want to say, that I'm looking at the Eurofighter through german eyes. What I say does maybe not apply to the british Eurofighter and its development. The RAF for sure put more emphasize on the A-G capabilities than the Luftwaffe throughout, but I'm not sure how much more.

 

Anyway, the Eurofighter was contrived during the 80s (with initial studies even dating back into the 70s) as an air superiority fighter that can compete with the newest generation of soviet fighters (Su-27 & MiG-29) in both, BVR and WVR. That was necessary, because both countrys relied on the F-4 Phantom II as their primary fighter which couldn't keep up with the new soviet fighters, especially in close combat but also in BVR (german F-4s relied solely on their AIM-9s). Because of that the Eurofighter was concieved as a highly capable dog fighter with high maneuverability and high g-loads, because the soviet fighters were believed to even outmaneuver the newest US fighters. That resulted in the delta-carnard design that provides those abilities. In addition to that it was equipped with sophisticated avionics a highly capable radar and modern BVR-armament. The Tornado was supposed to carry on filling the A-G role.

 

But then the Cold War ended and a new era began in which enemy air forces were considerably less capable (Iraq, Yugoslavia) than the soviet Air Force and the need for more multirole aircraft emerged. That led to the decision to enhance the Eurofighters A-G capabilities (which were only rudimentary at that point) to make it a true multirole platform.

 

Again, that's the german point of view. I'm not sure if it was the same on the british side. The german wikipedia states on the very top: "Ursprünglich als Luftüberlegenheitsjäger gegen die Bedrohung des Warschauer Paktes entwickelt, wurde das Flugzeug nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges für seine neue Aufgabe als Mehrzweckkampfflugzeug angepasst." which translates to "Originally planned as an air superiority fighter against the threat of the Warsaw Pact, the aircraft was adjusted to its new task as a multirole aircraft.".

I know, wikipedia is not a good source (if it is a source at all), but the Luftwaffe is also mentioning that role adjustment in an article about ground attack:

"Im Rahmen der Rollenanpassung des Eurofighters ist bereits die Fähigkeit zum Einsatz der GBU-16 „Paveway II“ in Verbindung mit einem Laser Designator Pod „vertraglich eingebaut“."

Eng: "As part of the Eurofighters role adjustment, the ability to use the GBU-16 "Paveway II" in conjunction with a Laser Designator Pod is already contracted."

Edited August 15, 2016 by QuiGon

[Mr_Burns]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Eurofighter_Typhoon

 

Certainly v.early it was a fighter but was multi role long before contracts were signed. It's often rolled out by the press it's a Cold War fighter to try and discredit it, but the design and purpose changed before it became EFA and EF2000 and EF Typhoon.

[Pman]

However it was designed the block of aircraft that we are doing was not deployed as an A2G variant. It was retrospectively updated to have the Litening pod and limited A2G capbilities.

 

It should be noted that during the Libya deployment that the Typhoon was unable to laze for itself and had to have Tornados laze targets for it and that was only 2011. The block 5 was delivered to the RAF in 2007.

 

As we have said before it is unlikely that we will do the Litening pod, and even if we did it would only be for LGB, Brimstone, Storm Shadow etc have already been ruled out.

 

Pman

[QuiGon]

It should be noted that during the Libya deployment that the Typhoon was unable to laze for itself and had to have Tornados laze targets for it and that was only 2011. The block 5 was delivered to the RAF in 2007.

 

Glorious Tornado 8)

[shagrat]

As I said, the MiG-21bis even has the tactical nukes modeled... and they sure did never nuked any targets.

In the end the realism argument would require blocking “unrealistic“ planes from maps (no A-10C ever fought in the Caucasus, opposition on NTTR/Nevada consists of F-16 and F-15)...

So why for the sake of customer satisfaction not try to at least add some options?

 

If it is just another Mirage, F-5E, bomb truck, that would be massively disappointing. :sad:

[Pman]

As I said, the MiG-21bis even has the tactical nukes modeled... and they sure did never nuked any targets.

In the end the realism argument would require blocking “unrealistic“ planes from maps (no A-10C ever fought in the Caucasus, opposition on NTTR/Nevada consists of F-16 and F-15)...

So why for the sake of customer satisfaction not try to at least add some options?

 

If it is just another Mirage, F-5E, bomb truck, that would be massively disappointing. :sad:

 

Yeah but at least the Mig had those systems. The specific build that we are working on is a 2009 airframe. Over 3 years before the Typhoon successfully lazed for itself with a litening pod.

 

Our goal is to produce the best simulation of the Eurofighter that we can/are able to make within DCS.

 

Regarding other aircraft, it is not our call what is or is not included with other modules, we can only control what is included within our modules. This isn't just with regard to the Typhoon but all of the other as well.

 

Even with LGB the aircraft would only have pretty basic A2G capabilities, that is not the role the T1B5 forfilled for the airframe we are working on.

 

Sorry Shagrat, Although it will dissapoint some people, Our Eurofighter is never going to be a true Multi-Role aircraft. Its primary purpose will be A2A operations and very basic ground support.

 

Pman

[QuiGon]

As I said, the MiG-21bis even has the tactical nukes modeled... and they sure did never nuked any targets.

In the end the realism argument would require blocking “unrealistic“ planes from maps (no A-10C ever fought in the Caucasus, opposition on NTTR/Nevada consists of F-16 and F-15)...

So why for the sake of customer satisfaction not try to at least add some options?

 

If it is just another Mirage, F-5E, bomb truck, that would be massively disappointing. :sad:

 

The MiG-21 had tac Nukes IRL...

And what do locations have to do with the realism of aircraft systems? :huh:

 

I'm afraid you're waiting for the wrong aircraft. The Eurofighter is not a striker, at least not in this version. This a dedicated fighter, like the F-15.

Edited August 15, 2016 by QuiGon

[The Black Swan]

Wait.... I'm late here... No guided A2G for the typhoon?!?!

All those MPCDs for A to A? This makes me sad... Mabye the AG variant could me made after?

[Pman]

Wait.... I'm late here... No guided A2G for the typhoon?!?!

All those MPCDs for A to A? This makes me sad... Mabye the AG variant could me made after?

 

 

 

Please go back and read the posts that I have made on the typhoon variant.

 

Tldr: We are doing the T1B5 no other variants are going to be produced.

 

Pman

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BitMaster]

What a pitty.

 

Its challenging in many ways to model an aircraft and its systems which in RL is highly classified and will be for at least 2 decades to come.

 

From that perspective, you could model or not model certain systems, it will still be mostly guess work and proximity but no publicaly available facts.

 

I love Ef2000 but will steer around this one as it just hasnt what i want and most of the rest in systems must be guesswork as real data is top secret.

 

How does this approach fit into DCS's demands of accuracy based on RL data?

 

A2A highly depends on radar capabilities, are those numbers available accurate enough to say it can lock +40km compared to a Su27, or 30....or25??? Guesswork

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[QuiGon]

What a pitty.

 

Its challenging in many ways to model an aircraft and its systems which in RL is highly classified and will be for at least 2 decades to come.

 

From that perspective, you could model or not model certain systems, it will still be mostly guess work and proximity but no publicaly available facts.

 

I love Ef2000 but will steer around this one as it just hasnt what i want and most of the rest in systems must be guesswork as real data is top secret.

 

How does this approach fit into DCS's demands of accuracy based on RL data?

 

A2A highly depends on radar capabilities, are those numbers available accurate enough to say it can lock +40km compared to a Su27, or 30....or25??? Guesswork

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Uhm, you know that VEAO is in close contact with the RAF/MoD and are developing a military simulaton of the Eurofighter for them?

 

If not, you should really read the first post in this very thread.

Especially this part:

 

Q: How realistic will the VEAO Typhoon be in comparison to the real aircraft?

 

A: The VEAO team intends to create an authentic representation of the real aircraft within the given constraints.

 

Q: The Eurofighter Typhoon is a relative recent, advanced combat aircraft, aren’t most of its features/capabilities classified?

 

A: Not everything about this aircraft is classified, but of course there are several classified aspects. That’s actually true for all military aircraft in active service and even for many former types that aren’t operational anymore.

 

Q: Given the above, how is VEAO going to create an authentic replication of the real aircraft?

 

A: VEAO has contacts within the UK military and is in the process of developing a military version of the Typhoon module. The team subsequently has the access to the information and data needed to create an authentic model of the aircraft. The public version that will be released as a certified 3rd party add-on module for DCS World will be based on this military version. However, it will be a deducted/-de-classified version of it.

Edited August 15, 2016 by QuiGon

[shagrat]

Yeah but at least the Mig had those systems. The specific build that we are working on is a 2009 airframe. Over 3 years before the Typhoon successfully lazed for itself with a litening pod.

 

Our goal is to produce the best simulation of the Eurofighter that we can/are able to make within DCS.

 

Regarding other aircraft, it is not our call what is or is not included with other modules, we can only control what is included within our modules. This isn't just with regard to the Typhoon but all of the other as well.

 

Even with LGB the aircraft would only have pretty basic A2G capabilities, that is not the role the T1B5 forfilled for the airframe we are working on.

 

Sorry Shagrat, Although it will dissapoint some people, Our Eurofighter is never going to be a true Multi-Role aircraft. Its primary purpose will be A2A operations and very basic ground support.

 

Pman

Sad and disapponting indeed, so my hopes are for a “field upgrade“ like they did for the Libya campaign, later.

 

Hopefully the F/A-18 arrives quickly, to support QRF sorties, that can lase independent from the A-10C or ground troops.

 

So at least we can bomb truck Paveways to the frontline, or are we really stuck with a combat Air patrol fighter, circling skies as a show of force, when it comes to realistic engagements?