FAQ: VEAO Typhoon for DCS World

[shagrat]

No we didn't, the aircraft were able to equip LINTENING III as part of the upgrades already ongoing.

 

It's pretty simple really, saying T1 B5 doesn't actually mean much, it's just a production series. What actually matters is what PSC is being modelled, if it's 3.35.0 then it should be EPWII and LDP capable. If it's an earlier PSC then it won't be.

 

Yep, what I said. They put a LITENING III TGP(Pod) on the Typhoon, as it is capable of mounting it, as these ongoing upgrades were part of the original planning. It could be up to full capabilities (METEOR, Brimstone, Taurus etc.) hopefully somewhere in the mid 2020ies.

 

And it is not NOT a "pure A-A Fighter"...

[mattebubben]

Yep, what I said. They put a LITENING III TGP(Pod) on the Typhoon, as it is capable of mounting it, as these ongoing upgrades were part of the original planning. It could be up to full capabilities (METEOR, Brimstone, Taurus etc.) hopefully somewhere in the mid 2020ies.

 

And it is not NOT a "pure A-A Fighter"...

 

Its not a pure A-A fighter now.

 

But it was Initially.

 

And yes where as the Block 5 is now capable of mounting the Litening III targeting pod it was not initially.

 

And again what we have been trying to explain...

 

If they wanted to Simulate Block 5 from 2010-2011 or later then sure give it the TGP but if they wanted to Simulate a Block 5 earlier then that then it should not be able to use the TGP as it was not yet able to carry / use it.

 

And Design wise from the beginning they planned that in time (around when the Tornado would have to be Retired) the Typhoon would be given full Swing-role / Multi-role capabilities but due to how things turned out they decided to speed up that process and do it earlier (Thus the Program to Modify the Block 5 to be able to use the Litening III targeting pod).

 

But this was not an Initial feature or something that the early variants were capable off,

Where as the Air-Air capability was focused and available from day one.

 

Modifying the Typhoon to carry the Targeting pod was not a question of simply plugging it in and then it worked...

 

There was alot more work and changed needed then that to make everything work (Upgraded Software / Systems etc).

[shagrat]

Its not a pure A-A fighter now.

 

But it was Initially.

 

And yes where as the Block 5 is now capable of mounting the Litening III targeting pod it was not initially.

 

And again what we have been trying to explain...

 

If they wanted to Simulate Block 5 from 2010-2011 or later then sure give it the TGP but if they wanted to Simulate a Block 5 earlier then that then it should not be able to use the TGP as it was not yet able to carry / use it.

 

And Design wise from the beginning they planned that in time (around when the Tornado would have to be Retired) the Typhoon would be given full Swing-role / Multi-role capabilities but due to how things turned out they decided to speed up that process and do it earlier (Thus the Program to Modify the Block 5 to be able to use the Litening III targeting pod).

 

But this was not an Initial feature or something that the early variants were capable off,

Where as the Air-Air capability was focused and available from day one.

 

Modifying the Typhoon to carry the Targeting pod was not a question of simply plugging it in and then it worked...

 

There was alot more work and changed needed then that to make everything work (Upgraded Software / Systems etc).

Initially it was a multirole fighter by design and requirements. The first operational machines had only A-A weapons. Still it never was a "pure A-A fighter" like the F-15C.

 

So when they decided to speed up the upgrades, the capabilities were there, it is a Tranche 1 Block 5 with multirole capabilities including a Targetting Pod, that flew sorties in real life.

I hope we can agree on that.

 

So the argument Tranche 1 Block 5 is A-A only, etc. is moot, in my point of view.

 

The only argument is that if you choose a specific point in time, it wouldn't have a TGP.

 

So my wish is for VEAO to reconsider the option(!) to "upgrade" to a Tranche 1 Block 5 of the Lybia conflict timeframe, no more, no less. :notworthy:

 

They may consider it later, or as an add-on. I just don't like the "there will be no TGP, ever!" approach.

[Pman]

Sorry Shagrat, our agreement does not include the later deployments on the T1B5.

 

Advanced air to ground weaponary such as Brimstone and Stormshadow has been ruled out entirely.

 

Lightening pod III has also been ruled out.

 

We are focusing on a 2008/2009 airframe so TGP is not in focus.

 

Our Typhoon is primarily focused on A2A engagements with very limited A2G capability mainly consisting of dumb bombs and cannon strafing.

 

As discussed earlier we have stringent agreements we have to adhere to with our commercial partners, we can not and will not waiver from this.

 

Pman

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QuiGon]

Initially it was a multirole fighter by design and requirements. The first operational machines had only A-A weapons. Still it never was a "pure A-A fighter" like the F-15C.

It was a pure A-A fighter initially (Block 1, 2 and 2B). Block 5 was the first one with A-G capabilities and they were limited ("initial air-to-ground capability"). The targeting pod was not part of the Block 5 standard. The RAF added it on their behalf later. And they removed it again so to say, because they restricted their Tranche 1 Typhoons to A-A only now.

 

Edit: What Pman said. Also here: https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2007/02/type-acceptance-for-block-5-standard-eurofighter-typhoon

Edited October 10, 2016 by QuiGon

[shagrat]

It was a pure A-A fighter initially (Block 1, 2 and 2B). Block 5 was the first one with A-G capabilities and they were limited ("initial air-to-ground capability"). The targeting pod was not part of the Block 5 standard. The RAF added it on their behalf later. And they removed it again so to say, because they restricted their Tranche 1 Typhoons to A-A only now.

 

Edit: What Pman said. Also here: https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2007/02/type-acceptance-for-block-5-standard-eurofighter-typhoon

A F-22 or a F-15C is a pure A-A fighter.

A plane built and designed for a single role: Air-to-air combat.

When the Eurofighter was finally funded, it was built and designed for multirole/swing role as required by some customers, to replace other planes over time, thus it got a continuous program of upgrades, from test, over first mission ready, to full capabilities somewhere in the future.

 

As Eddie pointed out, the Tranche 1 Block 5 simply got the upgrade earlier.

That is why they had it available.

If I'm not mistaken the original plan was to roll this upgrade with the Tranche 2 for ease of deployment.

 

@pman - I absolutely understand the issue with the LITENING III, as it is still classified. I was wondering if we could get the LITENING I somewhere later on the road, as it is already on the A-10C to "mimick" the LITENING II it carried?

Or would this mess with the current agreement?

[probad]

you might as well be asking ed to slap a tgp onto a 15c to mimic 15e.

 

go do it on a modder's dime.

[mattebubben]

A F-22 or a F-15C is a pure A-A fighter.

A plane built and designed for a single role: Air-to-air combat.

When the Eurofighter was finally funded, it was built and designed for multirole/swing role as required by some customers, to replace other planes over time, thus it got a continuous program of upgrades, from test, over first mission ready, to full capabilities somewhere in the future.

 

As Eddie pointed out, the Tranche 1 Block 5 simply got the upgrade earlier.

That is why they had it available.

If I'm not mistaken the original plan was to roll this upgrade with the Tranche 2 for ease of deployment.

 

@pman - I absolutely understand the issue with the LITENING III, as it is still classified. I was wondering if we could get the LITENING I somewhere later on the road, as it is already on the A-10C to "mimick" the LITENING II it carried?

Or would this mess with the current agreement?

 

Well how are the F-15C and F-22 A-A only then if the initial Eurofighter is not?.

 

Since the F-22 is able to carry and use advanced air-ground ordnance (JDAM,SBD and others) and it has used that Strike capability In Syria.

 

And the F-15C (and F-15A) are both able to carry Dumb bombs

(Apparently they had that abillity form the factory).

 

Its just that the US never used that capability as they had other attack aircraft the F-15 in US service was only used for Air-Superiority tasks.

(Israel is known to have used both F-15C and F-15D aircraft for strike missions most famously Operation Wooden Leg)

 

So if that is the Case the neither of them are Pure A-A either (especially not the F-22).

 

So should we Demand ED give the F-15C Dumb bombs since it can use them in

(even though they were never widely used with bombs).

 

Most fighters have some Air-Ground Capabilities built in even if those are just Dumb Bombs/Rockets.

 

But that does not mean they are All fully Fledged multi-role aircraft.

 

The initial Block 5 had Limited air-ground Capabilities (Comparable to a Mig-29A,Su-27S or Mirage 2000C)

 

That that is what is correct for the era of Block 5 that is being simulated so we will have to settle for that.

Edited October 10, 2016 by mattebubben

[shagrat]

Well how are the F-15C and F-22 A-A only then if the initial Eurofighter is not?.

 

Since the F-22 is able to carry and use advanced air-ground ordnance (JDAM,SBD and others)

And the F-15C (and F-15A) are both able to carry Dumb bombs

(Apparently they had that abillity form the factory).

 

Its just that the US never used that capability as they had other attack aircraft the F-15 in US service was only used for Air-Superiority tasks.

(Israel is known to have used both F-15C and F-15D aircraft for strike missions most famously Operation Wooden Leg)

 

So if that is the Case the neither of them are Pure A-A either (especially not the F-22).

The design specification for the F-22 or F-15C was for an air superiority fighter opposed to the Eurofighter which was designed as a multirole/swing role fighter.

It is not about the capability to put bombs it is about the support through systems and avionics.

 

The whole point is, a LITENING III on the Eurofighter is nothing "unusual" or sacrilege or unrealistic...

[Silver_Dragon]

Shagrat, the EFA contract is locked as Pman tell. Has the similar situations of laser mavericks or some avionics on A-10C. If you like a issue with the military, go on....

[mattebubben]

The design specification for the F-22 or F-15C was for an air superiority fighter opposed to the Eurofighter which was designed as a multirole/swing role fighter.

It is not about the capability to put bombs it is about the support through systems and avionics.

 

The whole point is, a LITENING III on the Eurofighter is nothing "unusual" or sacrilege or unrealistic...

 

...

 

The F-22 has all the Avionics and systems needed to Emply its smart Munitions.

 

And the F-15A and F-15C was able to use both CCIP and CCRP to give it accurate deliver of Air-ground munitions

(and in tests it was said to be as accurate in bomb delivery as the F-16)

 

And again the Whole point is Yes for the 2007-2008 Eurofighter Block 5 a Litening is Both unrealistic and Sacrilege...

As it was a Capability it did not yet have at that time.

 

Yes their main duties were as Air Superiority fighters but they also have Air-ground Capabilities and both have used them (and the F-22 with its smart bombs have pretty advance air-ground capabilities)

 

But the Eurofighter is also mainly used as a Air-Superiority fighter (and that was its Primary duty and its only duty until more recently)

and is not used as a prime strike aircraft as most of the major operators have other Aircraft that take the that role.

 

What Wikipedia describes as an aircrafts main role is not really as important as what it is used for and its capabilities it has had over its Operational service.

Edited October 10, 2016 by mattebubben

[shagrat]

You are right, I have no clue about aircraft... I can only read through wikipedia and so on and so forth.

Please ED and all third parties state the exact year of build of the modules produced and remove every "unrealistic" weapons and capabilities along with all "tweaks" used to make the modules work, for realism sake.

No TGP for the A-10C, no AIM-120 for the F-15C, no nukes for the MiG-21.

 

That is definitely much better?!

[mattebubben]

Well Except that the A-10C is able to use a TGP.

 

The F-15C of that Block with those updates is able to carry the Aim-120.

 

And Some Mig-21Bis were able to carry Tactical Nukes.

 

And the TGP for the A-10C and Aim-120 are completely Accurate and Realistic.

[shagrat]

Well Except that the A-10C is able to use a TGP.

 

The F-15C of that Block with those updates is able to carry the Aim-120.

 

And Some Mig-21Bis were able to carry Tactical Nukes.

 

And the TGP for the A-10C and Aim-120 are completely Accurate and Realistic.

...and the Tiffy with that upgrades is able to use TGP.

Like the MiG CAN carry a Nuke it CAN carry a pod.

 

While the A-10C in real life flew a LITENING II pod as TGP, who was too advanced to model...

And the F-15C modeled is an earlier one that had no AIM-120 "before the upgrade" like the Typhoon of 2007/2008...

 

Just saying.

Edited October 11, 2016 by shagrat

[QuiGon]

The design specification for the F-22 or F-15C was for an air superiority fighter opposed to the Eurofighter which was designed as a multirole/swing role fighter.

 

The later Eurofighter versions, yes, but the design specification for the early versions (Block 1, 2, 2B) was pure A-A, with the Block 5 adding initial, but limited A-G capabilities by design. The UK decided to restrict their Tranche 1 Typhoons to A-A only, after they recieved Tranche 2 and 3 Tiffiys. Austria, which only bought Tranche 1 Eurofighters never even intended to use them in the A-G role AFAIK and uses them for A-A only. Germany, to my knowledge, also never used Tranche 1 Eurofighters for A-G, not even in training.

The UK was the only country who used Tranche 1 Eurofighters for A-G.

Edited October 11, 2016 by QuiGon

[rajdary]

If that Eurofighter was able to carry the TGP later on, why not have it simulated, there is no loss, whoever wants to keep it 100% accurate to that block/Tranche specifically, simply shouldnt use it, whoever wants to savour a later iteration of that Tiffy, let them enjoy it. Developers have to find a compromise between utter irealism and pure accurate realism, IMHO in this case adding a Tgp is much more towards the accurate realism.

Edited October 11, 2016 by rajdary

[shagrat]

+1

If that Eurofighter was able to carry the TGP later on, why not have it simulate it, there is no loss, whoever wants to keep it 100% not accurate to that year specifically, simply shouldnt use it, whoever wants to savour a later iteration of that Tiffy, let them enjoy.

^that was the idea. Given VEAO could use/integrate the TGP from the A-10C for example.

[rajdary]

^that was the idea. Given VEAO could use/integrate the TGP from the A-10C for example.

 

Exactly, its even a matter of how much extra work they have to implement to add the TGP, having it already developed for the A10C, makes it an easy choice.

[QuiGon]

If that Eurofighter was able to carry the TGP later on, why not have it simulated, there is no loss, whoever wants to keep it 100% accurate to that block/Tranche specifically, simply shouldnt use it, whoever wants to savour a later iteration of that Tiffy, let them enjoy it. Developers have to find a compromise between utter irealism and pure accurate realism, IMHO in this case adding a Tgp is much more towards the accurate realism.

 

Well, why not give a TGP to the F-15C or the Mirage 2000C, because later variants of these aircraft were able to use TGPs? Because this sim is supposed to be accurate and realistic.

Edited October 11, 2016 by QuiGon

[shagrat]

Shagrat, the EFA contract is locked as Pman tell. Has the similar situations of laser mavericks or some avionics on A-10C. If you like a issue with the military, go on....

Thus the original idea for the A-10Cs old LITENING pod. It has been cleared by the US military and isn't used on the EF Typhoon.

Looking back at the 90ies even DID's EF 2000 had a TGP.

This feels like a huge step back... :(

[shagrat]

Well, why not give a TGP to the F-15C or the Mirage 2000C, because later variants of these aircraft were able to use TGPs? Because this sim is supposed to be accurate and realistic.

You mean like a LITENING I pod for the A-10C? Or the slingload hook for the Ka-50? Or more like the "optional" Arcade Mode with easy control and 360° radar?

Or are you talking about your personal preference?

[QuiGon]

You mean like a LITENING I pod for the A-10C? Or the slingload hook for the Ka-50? Or more like the "optional" Arcade Mode with easy control and 360° radar?

Or are you talking about your personal preference?

 

Easy control und 360° radar are bugs and not features. The latter of them has already been solved AFAIK.

 

I'm curious, what's wrong with the A-10's TGP or KA-50 slingload? (pm me pls, because this is pretty offtopic)

[shagrat]

No Arcade Mode with Situation Display and "easy" SFM Controls, are advertised features of DCS World. Just not very popular.

 

You would be astonished what a minority actually is represented on this forum and what preferences the silent majority actually have. ;)

[Pman]

No we will not be implementing the Litening I pod either, it wasn't used on Typhoons so why would we implement it?

 

Could we ? Yes most likely, but it is not accurate so we won't. The build that we have agreed on with our commercial partners does not include a TGP.

 

Please let this be put to bed now, this answer is not going to change.

 

Pman

[Schmidtfire]

Let's get real. The Hawk has quality issues. No sound in cockpit when firing the ADEN. Shell ejection and muzzle flash are located way below the ADEN pod.

I decided to use sidewinders instead. Tried to adjust missile seeker volume by turning the knob. Didn't work.

 

I would say this is fairly basic stuff that should have been fixed by now, but there is always more "critical" bugs to deal with, or Duxford... sigh.

On another hand, the latest screenshots and videos of the P-40F looks very promising and I hope that the "road" will be less bumpy this time around.

 

I will always support a quality product and If the EF turns out great I will buy it.

But unless Veao proves that they can make a quality product (and I hope they will), I wouldn't even get into the discussion of a TGP or other

advanced systems on a Typhoon. First get the basics right, then we can talk about the extras :)