Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You'll certainly have a duplex redundancy as per the F-35 LAD. The charm of the big displays is window capability and therefore variable format sizes commensurate with increased sensor resolutions and dependent on prevailing tactical situations.
  2. Yes that's not a lot, but an exotic tanker asset that has been operated by whom exactly, apart from the RAF? We don't have a single RAF operated fast jet in DCS as a flyable aircraft and even the Eurofighter will be the German version. And yet you ask for a dedicated RAF operated AI asset. I think that such requests are better placed with the community or ED, rather than asking already highly loaded development teams for flyable aircraft modules to develope this or that AI assets as supplementary.
  3. I wonder why there is such a fixation on AI Tanker assets. Ofcourse it would be nice to have a tanker for every country's airforce, but it's a bit of a stretch and I don't think it needs one thread per tanker "wish". We are awaiting a complex flyable aircraft module which is still in the making and yet everyone is already asking for more...
  4. Programme language is English and everything is therefore in English in the cockpit, irrespective of the operator.
  5. PIRATE is actually designed and developed by a trinational industry consortium (EUROFIRST) comprising Leonardo from Italy and UK and IIRC Indra from Spain. Leonardo Italy is the primary supplier for the equipment. As part of the overall weapon system integration, AIRBUS Germany is the system and equipment design responsible and BAES the installation design authority.
  6. As said, manage your expectations. Gero also made it clear that everything depends on the license holder, accessability and availability of data etc. We'll likely get a P1E like Typhoon with Meteor and maybe some selected elements from the newer P2E/P3E standards and possibly also elements from the older SRP2/4/5 standards whatever is available for different aspects of the aircraft and its systems.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. It's more about political decision making. It's not the Luftwaffe saying we don't want PIRATE.
  • Create New...