Typhoon Tranche1?

[rocaf2003]

 

Hello,There!I was wondering if There was any hope that we could get an "extra" version of the Typhoon when it was released, i.e. Tranche1 Block2 version, which could only carry AIM120 typhoons. As far as I know, Tranche1 Block2 has been considered for retirement, and a lot of data has been made public, so it is easier to simulate this aircraft accurately to the maximum extent. Tranche2 and Tranche3 may be too advanced to simulate some Avionics features, which is just an additional option. Just like F14A vs F14B in DCS, (Honestly, I'm pretty happy with Tranche1Block2. What the Tranche 1 has is already very good: a radar that can detect 5m2 targets up to 185km, and a 1.4M supersonic cruise with four BVRAAM mounted half-buried and head-on RCS like the SU57)

[irisono]

vor 57 Minuten schrieb rocaf2003:

 

Hello,There!I was wondering if There was any hope that we could get an "extra" version of the Typhoon when it was released, i.e. Tranche1 Block2 version, which could only carry AIM120 typhoons. As far as I know, Tranche1 Block2 has been considered for retirement, and a lot of data has been made public, so it is easier to simulate this aircraft accurately to the maximum extent. Tranche2 and Tranche3 may be too advanced to simulate some Avionics features, which is just an additional option. Just like F14A vs F14B in DCS, (Honestly, I'm pretty happy with Tranche1Block2. What the Tranche 1 has is already very good: a radar that can detect 5m2 targets up to 185km, and a 1.4M supersonic cruise with four BVRAAM mounted half-buried and head-on RCS like the SU57)

I think this is a very good suggestion. On the one hand, an early version of the Thyphoon fits much better into today's DCS environment with protagonists such as Su-25, Su-27, Mig-12Bis, Mig-29A, F-14B, F-16C etc. On the other hand, it would be a true European representative of the early post-Cold War era. Which, in my opinion, represents a very interesting period of military aviation.

[Spectre11]

Block 2 aircraft weren't fully operational in their delivery form. Wouldn't make much sense, if you ask me. A Block 5 equivalent aircraft would be a better choice IMO. But I'll take what we get.

[F-2]

7 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

Block 2 aircraft weren't fully operational in their delivery form. Wouldn't make much sense, if you ask me. A Block 5 equivalent aircraft would be a better choice IMO. But I'll take what we get.

Before it was announced that’s what I thought and expected. But hey I’ll take whatever they think they can do.

[rocaf2003]

8 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

Block 2 aircraft weren't fully operational in their delivery form. Wouldn't make much sense, if you ask me. A Block 5 equivalent aircraft would be a better choice IMO. But I'll take what we get.

Thank you for your reply,Sir! May I ask. Do you think there really is a mix of different Tranches in RL?Lookibg forward for you reply,THANKS A LOT!

41 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Before it was announced that’s what I thought and expected. But hey I’ll take whatever they think they can do.

Thank you for your reply, Sir! Do you think there really is a mix of different Tranches in the RL world? Looking forward to your reply. Thank you very much

15 hours ago, irisono said:

I think this is a very good suggestion. On the one hand, an early version of the Thyphoon fits much better into today's DCS environment with protagonists such as Su-25, Su-27, Mig-12Bis, Mig-29A, F-14B, F-16C etc. On the other hand, it would be a true European representative of the early post-Cold War era. Which, in my opinion, represents a very interesting period of military aviation.

Thanks for your help,Sir!I think tranche1 is a nice plane.If the SU57 is 5Gen aircraft,I think The Typhoon is 5Gen too,Sir

[Neor]

We've been repeatedly encouraged to think outside the box. Given the numerous variations within the same Tranche and Block categories, it's impractical to predict the exact version we'll receive. I'm ready to accept whatever comes our way and will be more than satisfied with it!

[Spectre11]

On 11/2/2024 at 2:24 AM, rocaf2003 said:

Thank you for your reply,Sir! May I ask. Do you think there really is a mix of different Tranches in RL?Lookibg forward for you reply,THANKS A LOT!

Let's phrase it this way. Each Block standard has a defined delivery configuration, comprising the physical design of the aircraft, the equipment hardware and the software hosted on the electronic equipment. For service use electronic hardware and software combinations need to be qualified, to ensure that no incompatibility ensues between hardware and software. These cleared electronic hardware/software configurations are described by Production System Configurations (PSC) and are the most precise expression of aircraft capabilities. In the Eurofighter programme it is common practise that earlier Block standards are upgraded to new PSCs by installing the new/upgraded hardware and installing the respective software. As said there are cleared configurations and devations are not allowed to maintain equipment compatibility. Non-PSC related changes are introduced as needed. A Block 1 aircraft at PSC 3.31 for example is identical to a Block 5 aircraFt at PSC 3.31, from a pilot's perspective. Differences in non-PSC hardware are more a concern for maintenance (for example a different skin panel configuration, or how the wires are routed internally etc). The T1 fleet is largely unified in this respect, but it's evolution has been rather limited as many operators plan to retire their T1s, or are already in the process of doing this. At least the RAF and the GAF have already retired many T1s and there aren't too many left.

T2 and T3 are more uniform in terms of PSCs, but have likewise been updated as described above for T1s. Some fit, form and functionaly equivalent equipment has been qualified for use on T1 aircraft, confessing a new PSC. But some equipment cannot be readily used onboard T1s, without some airframe modifications. As not all aircraft can be upgraded from one day to another you naturally have aircraft at different PSC standards and sometimes their differences are minor and sometimes they are major. For example the P1E, P2E etc. standards all entail dedicated PSCs and there are some sub-configurations available. It's up to the operators to decide which specific standards are employed operationally. What you will not see in reality as such is a kind of T1/T2 hybrid. The way it is described in the Heatblur FAQ is not entirely accurate that way, but it's arguably hard to describe and there are other aircraft in DCS where features from different standards of that aircraft are simulated and you'll not find an exacting equivalent in the real world. Apart from those in the know, most people will not notice this anyway, so it's not really a concern and what matters, at least to me, is that the representation of the ircraft is overall believeable and not grossely off.

[rocaf2003]

9 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

Let's phrase it this way. Each Block standard has a defined delivery configuration, comprising the physical design of the aircraft, the equipment hardware and the software hosted on the electronic equipment. For service use electronic hardware and software combinations need to be qualified, to ensure that no incompatibility ensues between hardware and software. These cleared electronic hardware/software configurations are described by Production System Configurations (PSC) and are the most precise expression of aircraft capabilities. In the Eurofighter programme it is common practise that earlier Block standards are upgraded to new PSCs by installing the new/upgraded hardware and installing the respective software. As said there are cleared configurations and devations are not allowed to maintain equipment compatibility. Non-PSC related changes are introduced as needed. A Block 1 aircraft at PSC 3.31 for example is identical to a Block 5 aircraFt at PSC 3.31, from a pilot's perspective. Differences in non-PSC hardware are more a concern for maintenance (for example a different skin panel configuration, or how the wires are routed internally etc). The T1 fleet is largely unified in this respect, but it's evolution has been rather limited as many operators plan to retire their T1s, or are already in the process of doing this. At least the RAF and the GAF have already retired many T1s and there aren't too many left.

T2 and T3 are more uniform in terms of PSCs, but have likewise been updated as described above for T1s. Some fit, form and functionaly equivalent equipment has been qualified for use on T1 aircraft, confessing a new PSC. But some equipment cannot be readily used onboard T1s, without some airframe modifications. As not all aircraft can be upgraded from one day to another you naturally have aircraft at different PSC standards and sometimes their differences are minor and sometimes they are major. For example the P1E, P2E etc. standards all entail dedicated PSCs and there are some sub-configurations available. It's up to the operators to decide which specific standards are employed operationally. What you will not see in reality as such is a kind of T1/T2 hybrid. The way it is described in the Heatblur FAQ is not entirely accurate that way, but it's arguably hard to describe and there are other aircraft in DCS where features from different standards of that aircraft are simulated and you'll not find an exacting equivalent in the real world. Apart from those in the know, most people will not notice this anyway, so it's not really a concern and what matters, at least to me, is that the representation of the ircraft is overall believeable and not grossely off.

Thank you very much for your professional and patient help, Sir! Yes,I think our aircraft should be close to a certain PSC standard, certainly not Meteor P2E, but the PSC standard must be there, in terms of simulation I'm not looking for 100% full simulation because things like ECM,IFF and so on are highly classified at all times. So I was thinking that it would only need to simulate a specific PSC that existed in the real world. With Meteor, I think it's more of a playability thing, because the PSC content of P2E is so secret that it's hard to simulate. So I think HB didn't choose to do that and instead applied Meteor to a specific PSC from before. I'm just hoping that HB will be able to simulate an aircraft for a specific PSC, so that it also fits what they're saying about this aircraft not being completely unrealistic