Eurofighter 2026+ release?

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, BigBorner said:

That’s not entirely true. 

It is, in that the "magic tech" is from 2005, and both Russians and Chinese are likely to have figured out similar things on their own. The US not wanting to export it probably has more to do with keeping the enemies guessing about what their best fighter can really do in terms of sensors and range, to maintain the deterrence afforded by its reputation.

There were indeed some talks about exporting the F-22, but they all ended when the customers balked at the price. Which is not surprising, given the US did, too. Even Israel, which usually gets outright handouts from the US, found the F-22 to be too much of a spend.

[Spectre11]

58 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It is, in that the "magic tech" is from 2005, and both Russians and Chinese are likely to have figured out similar things on their own. The US not wanting to export it probably has more to do with keeping the enemies guessing about what their best fighter can really do in terms of sensors and range, to maintain the deterrence afforded by its reputation.

There were indeed some talks about exporting the F-22, but they all ended when the customers balked at the price. Which is not surprising, given the US did, too. Even Israel, which usually gets outright handouts from the US, found the F-22 to be too much of a spend.

Tend to disagree here. 

1.) The F-22A today is not the same aircraft it was in 2005. Same is ofcourse true for other types.

2.) The US Congress blocked the sale of the F-22. There were interested nations like Japan, they were willing to pay, but weren't allowed to buy. 

3.) F-22 production was killed by R. Gates and to help the struggling F-35 programme. Unit Flyaway price of the F-22 was around 130 mln $ by the time production was discontinued. LRIP F-35s were more expensive than that and F-35s are only relatively cheap today after an enormous amount of money was thrown at the programme and hundreds of airframes being built. 

4.) Restarting F-22 production today would be uneconomic and with hintsight of the NGAD makes little sense anyway.

 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Spectre11 said:

Unit Flyaway price of the F-22 was around 130 mln $ by the time production was discontinued. LRIP F-35s were more expensive than that and F-35s are only relatively cheap today after an enormous amount of money was thrown at the programme and hundreds of airframes being built. 

In no place did I say that this actually worked out cheaper.  The F-22 canceled for being too expensive and then a lot more money was spent on procuring the "cheaper" F-35s. While the program eventually produced a pretty good fighter, it only happened after the program experienced bloat beyond the wildest expectations. This is par the course for the Pentagon procurement mechanisms.

Quote

The US Congress blocked the sale of the F-22. There were interested nations like Japan, they were willing to pay, but weren't allowed to buy. 

Japan was considering it, but they actually withdrew when they heard further production was canceled. Which is wholly unsurprising, they were promptly pushed towards the F-35, despite an "F-22J" being possibly more suited to their particular use case, as it was with the F-15J.

[M1Combat]

"When they get in a fight, they fight to win."  - A fight is a different thing from an expedition or practice.

"The US not wanting to export it probably has more to do with keeping the enemies guessing about what their best fighter can really do in terms of sensors and range, to maintain the deterrence afforded by its reputation." - I mean... that's basically exactly what I said ;).  Also though...  If it were only sensors and range they want to keep to themselves...  they could supply with inferior sensors and range :).  But they don't...

All I'm saying is read between the lines.

Same for the M1.  You've got folks saying "Ahh look, they suck in Ukraine" but then you also keep them fighting in the most dangerous fights in the theater and you ask Australia for more...  Oh and the ones they're using are at a tech level from the 80's or early 90's...  nowhere NEAR the capability of the newer ones.

 

I'm not an American Exceptionalist...  But I do read between the lines and I've heard both the F22 and F35 with my own ears.  You can tell a lot from the sound of a jet engine at full chat.

 

 

[mrbluegame]

On 1/17/2025 at 12:25 AM, Mateo said:

We are absolutely overwhelmed by Eurofighter exterior in the 2025 and beyond video. No cockpit. No single word.
It is time to get some news from Heatblur.

I would not be surprised if they stopped working on the eurofighter for a long time and just worked on the f14d variant because the newest screenshot we got for the eurofighter is dog on old screenshot. It’s really unfortunate because I was really looking forward to that plane I don’t know what other good plane will release this year too beside the mig 29. I really wish that 3rd party would give more updates. This year might be a dry one for modules. If what I said is true though it may not be worked on until the f14d is out who knows how high the eurofighter is on their priority list at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited February 14 by mrbluegame

[Smashy]

15 hours ago, mrbluegame said:

If what I said is true though it may not be worked on until the f14d is out who knows how high the eurofighter is on their priority list at this point.

Wait, what?  I thought HB has always said there were absolutely no plans to do the F-14D.  Has something changed?

But if the D is incoming, does that mean the team working on the Typhoon would be reassigned to the D?  I thought that the Typhoon was being developed in partnership with True Grit.  I'm not sure what roles HB or TG are assuming for the Typhoon.

I'm still assuming no plans for the D and that Typhoon development is continuing.  I'm really looking forward to reliving DID's EF2000 on a modern platform!

[mrbluegame]

2 hours ago, Smashy said:

Wait, what?  I thought HB has always said there were absolutely no plans to do the F-14D.  Has something changed?

But if the D is incoming, does that mean the team working on the Typhoon would be reassigned to the D?  I thought that the Typhoon was being developed in partnership with True Grit.  I'm not sure what roles HB or TG are assuming for the Typhoon.

I'm still assuming no plans for the D and that Typhoon development is continuing.  I'm really looking forward to reliving DID's EF2000 on a modern platform!

The f-14BU was in the 2025 and beyond trailer and they posted screenshots of the f-14BU in their discord.  (Mb i ment bu not d)

Edited February 15 by mrbluegame

[F-2]

Isn’t that a B(U)?

[andrewd251]

That's not a D it's a F14B(U)

[mrbluegame]

50 minutes ago, andrewd251 said:

That's not a D it's a F14B(U)

Mb I ment bu it's like the d though right? Because I cannot find any information about the B(u)

Edited February 15 by mrbluegame

[Dragon1-1]

On 2/13/2025 at 10:53 PM, M1Combat said:

Same for the M1.  You've got folks saying "Ahh look, they suck in Ukraine" but then you also keep them fighting in the most dangerous fights in the theater and you ask Australia for more...  Oh and the ones they're using are at a tech level from the 80's or early 90's...  nowhere NEAR the capability of the newer ones.

The sad truth is, it's not the Abrams that sucks in Ukraine. It's the crews. The tank is fine, but Ukraine has serious issues. They're brave guys, and are doing their job as well as they can, but they're not on the level as, say, US or Polish troops. It's not only the tanks, either, Ukraine has severe management issues across their forces.

It's the same with modern Russian tanks, they're fine vehicles, but driven by poorly trained, poorly motivated crews. Ukrainians are getting much better results from captured ones than Russians do, and with NATO level crews they'd likely be incredibly effective. What this example shows is that it for all the fancy toys on the battlefield, the most important part are still the squishy meatbags inside them.

On 2/13/2025 at 10:53 PM, M1Combat said:

"When they get in a fight, they fight to win."  - A fight is a different thing from an expedition or practice.

If you talk to a fighter pilot, it's really not, at least when we're talking dogfights. They'll go to great lengths to win. One Tomcat crew even dumped most of their fuel, just to get on top of a Hornet in BFM. It's highly unlikely the Raptor driver held back on purpose. Not to mention, the way these things go, it's hard to avoid trained behaviors. There was a French pilot on GS' channel who fought a few dogfights with him, and one reason they went guns only was that he didn't want to accidentally launch a missile in a way that'd have revealed something classified about its engagement envelope. In the heat of a BFM engagement, you just don't have the time to think about such things.

What I said was strictly about the F-22's performance in BVR arena, where it's also at the most powerful. Dogfighting is a sideshow, but it's also where you can showcase your plane's strengths for the sake of domestic propaganda and pilots' personal pride. BFM performance is what you want to showcase, primarily to impress non-experts.

13 hours ago, mrbluegame said:

Mb I ment bu it's like the d though right? Because I cannot find any information about the B(u)

The B(U) is basically an F-14B with D avionics, but retaining the AWG-9. There were actually more of those than there were Ds. AWG-71 was installed on new F-14Ds and a few F-14As that were rebuilt into Ds. Until more data is available on the AWG-71 (keep watching the DOGE website, folks ), the B(U) is the best we'll get, but I suspect HB will be quick (in DCS terms) to introduce the D should the required info be declassified.

Edited February 15 by Dragon1-1

[mrbluegame]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The sad truth is, it's not the Abrams that sucks in Ukraine. It's the crews. The tank is fine, but Ukraine has serious issues. They're brave guys, and are doing their job as well as they can, but they're not on the level as, say, US or Polish troops. It's not only the tanks, either, Ukraine has severe management issues across their forces.

It's the same with modern Russian tanks, they're fine vehicles, but driven by poorly trained, poorly motivated crews. Ukrainians are getting much better results from captured ones than Russians do, and with NATO level crews they'd likely be incredibly effective. What this example shows is that it for all the fancy toys on the battlefield, the most important part are still the squishy meatbags inside them.

If you talk to a fighter pilot, it's really not, at least when we're talking dogfights. They'll go to great lengths to win. One Tomcat crew even dumped most of their fuel, just to get on top of a Hornet in BFM. It's highly unlikely the Raptor driver held back on purpose. Not to mention, the way these things go, it's hard to avoid trained behaviors. There was a French pilot on GS' channel who fought a few dogfights with him, and one reason they went guns only was that he didn't want to accidentally launch a missile in a way that'd have revealed something classified about its engagement envelope. In the heat of a BFM engagement, you just don't have the time to think about such things.

What I said was strictly about the F-22's performance in BVR arena, where it's also at the most powerful. Dogfighting is a sideshow, but it's also where you can showcase your plane's strengths for the sake of domestic propaganda and pilots' personal pride. BFM performance is what you want to showcase, primarily to impress non-experts.

The B(U) is basically an F-14B with D avionics, but retaining the AWG-9. There were actually more of those than there were Ds. AWG-71 was installed on new F-14Ds and a few F-14As that were rebuilt into Ds. Until more data is available on the AWG-71 (keep watching the DOGE website, folks ), the B(U) is the best we'll get, but I suspect HB will be quick (in DCS terms) to introduce the D should the required info be declassified.

Ah okay I see thanks. hopefully they will be quick too but i still suspect the eurofighter will not come out until the f-35 does sadly

[Zabuzard]

On 2/5/2025 at 5:38 PM, TobiasA said:

Yes, but there is TrueGrit as well. I don't know who the main developer is, but TrueGrit is only working on the Typhoon. 

The DCS EF is developed by us. TrueGrit helps us out with their expert knowledge and did provide the 3D model we used as base.

[M1Combat]

On 2/15/2025 at 6:44 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

The sad truth is, it's not the Abrams that sucks in Ukraine. It's the crews. The tank is fine, but Ukraine has serious issues.

 

That's what I said :)...

 

Quote

If you talk to a fighter pilot, it's really not, at least when we're talking dogfights. They'll go to great lengths to win. 
and one reason they went guns only was that he didn't want to accidentally launch a missile in a way that'd have revealed something classified about its engagement envelope.

That's also what I said :).  So you're saying one side operates in a way to hide some capability but the other doesn't?  I know you're not saying that...  I'm trying to point out that we're saying very similar things :).

 

Quote

Dogfighting is a sideshow, but it's also where you can showcase your plane's strengths for the sake of domestic propaganda and pilots' personal pride. BFM performance is what you want to showcase, primarily to impress non-experts.

Exactly

[Dragon1-1]

On 2/18/2025 at 11:00 PM, M1Combat said:

So you're saying one side operates in a way to hide some capability but the other doesn't? 

We're saying completely different things. I'm saying that pilot's can't "fly in a way that hides some capability". If that French pilot got in a jet equipped with missiles, his flying would have revealed classified information. So he refused to, he and GS only ever fought with guns. One of the other YouTubers also doesn't do videos flying the jet he actually flew (I think it was the Hornet), lest he accidentally use some trick that he's not supposed to reveal.

Holding back is simply not something fighter pilots do, especially not in a dogfight, when one has to think really fast. There's no time to think "can I do that move, or is it classified?". You figure out your gameplan, and then apply your training in order to get there. Consciously limiting performance in any way would be very difficult.

On 2/18/2025 at 11:00 PM, M1Combat said:

That's what I said :)...

No, you didn't. You did not say anything about the crews, just that the tanks are older models. The truth is, since those models, Abrams didn't improve that much. Sure, the top of the line model has plenty of new tech added on, but older versions are still very solid vehicles, competitive against their Russian counterparts. If Ukrainians got the most modern Abramses, it likely wouldn't have improved much, because their operators are the limiting factor.

[TotenDead]

В 13.02.2025 в 20:11, Spectre11 сказал:

 

4.) Restarting F-22 production today would be uneconomic and with hintsight of the NGAD makes little sense anyway.

 

But Ngad is dead-ish and the US even started to procure obese F-15s... 

[TotenDead]

В 14.02.2025 в 00:53, M1Combat сказал:

Same for the M1.  You've got folks saying "Ahh look, they suck in Ukraine" but then you also keep them fighting in the most dangerous fights in the theater and you ask Australia for more...  Oh and the ones they're using are at a tech level from the 80's or early 90's...  nowhere NEAR the capability of the newer ones.

Well, actually those are very close to the best of the best of what the US has. There's nothing in sep v2/3 compared to the fighting modification that would change a thing in their performance in this conflict

В 14.02.2025 в 00:53, M1Combat сказал:

 

 

В 15.02.2025 в 16:44, Dragon1-1 сказал:

The sad truth is, it's not the Abrams that sucks in Ukraine. It's the crews. The tank is fine, but Ukraine has serious issues. They're brave guys, and are doing their job as well as they can, but they're not on the level as, say, US or Polish troops. 

Yeah, well, those guys have more Combat experience than any american soldier so maybe be a little less sceptical about their poor, but still performance. There's noone in this world who would use that tank better at the moment

[Dragon1-1]

26 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Yeah, well, those guys have more Combat experience than any american soldier so maybe be a little less sceptical about their poor, but still performance. There's noone in this world who would use that tank better at the moment

Doubtful. Combat experience is not a panacea, and trying to learn combat by trial and error usually ends with one of those errors killing everyone. Yes, those who did survive no doubt ended up with useful experience, but that, in itself, won't fix their outdated doctrine, the holes in their initial training (which could suggest things they'd never even think of trying otherwise), nor will it fix poor tactical decisions by their commanders, or poor management by their high command, which often ends up diluting both the experience and any Western training they might have received. 

I'd expect Polish and US forces to perform better, even if they had to use the same vehicles, mostly because they operate under a doctrine that was actually designed for the Abrams. Ukrainian tank loses are the price paid for figuring those things out as they go.

39 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Well, actually those are very close to the best of the best of what the US has. There's nothing in sep v2/3 compared to the fighting modification that would change a thing in their performance in this conflict

Yeah, except the APS, extra ERA, airburst rounds, programmable ammo and wide angle displays. SEP v2, true (though it's still got better sensors than the M1A1s they've got), but SEP v3 is quite fancy. Even if the crews had trouble using the new toys effectively, the Trophy APS is by itself a great boon to survivability. 

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Doubtful. Combat experience is not a panacea, and trying to learn combat by trial and error usually ends with one of those errors killing everyone. Yes, those who did survive no doubt ended up with useful experience, but that, in itself, won't fix their outdated doctrine, the holes in their initial training (which could suggest things they'd never even think of trying otherwise), nor will it fix poor tactical decisions by their commanders, or poor management by their high command, which often ends up diluting both the experience and any Western training they might have received. 

 

Ukraine had 10 years of western style training, sent troops to nato countries to learn the experience, so... Nato forces never had such a war, not after 'nam. So no, I'd still say that people who have 3 years of real experience would be better than "just drive around the minefield" nato theoretics

2 часа назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Yeah, except the APS, extra ERA, airburst rounds, programmable ammo and wide angle displays. SEP v2, true (though it's still got better sensors than the M1A1s they've got), but SEP v3 is quite fancy. Even if the crews had trouble using the new toys effectively, the Trophy APS is by itself a great boon to survivability. 

Compared to v2 (the main US M1 mod, btw) the only important difference is the CITV, the A1 has a simpler one with less features for the commander. But that's it
Now, speaking of APS, the one on v3 is already outdated for modern threats. Not bad to have one, just won't save you from major threats like FPVs or mines
When it comes to ERA... They slap K1 wherever they can, so no real difference there
Airburst rounds? Nice feature, even though not a new one. But those entered full rate production only 2 months ago

[Spectre11]

5 hours ago, TotenDead said:

But Ngad is dead-ish and the US even started to procure obese F-15s... 

NGAD is a systems of systems concept, not just a single platform. They are re-evaluating the design of the mannes platform component of that system and the final word hasn't been spoken yet.

The F-15 is still in production unlike the F-22 and is therefore a more readily available and cheaper solution than re-starting F-22 production. 

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Ukraine had 10 years of western style training, sent troops to nato countries to learn the experience, so... Nato forces never had such a war, not after 'nam. So no, I'd still say that people who have 3 years of real experience would be better than "just drive around the minefield" nato theoretics

This sounds nice, but that experience, and this training, are both being wasted, mostly for political reasons. It doesn't filter through to the West very well (which is why our politicians are so eager to sing Zelensky's praises), but actual Ukrainians know very well what's going on. There are reports on the problems within Ukrainian military in Western press, but they're not particularly common, nobody wants to sound like a pro-Russian defeatist, after all. For instance, look up what they did to that French-trained combined arms battalion they got a while ago. That sort of thing seems to happens to much of the NATO-style training they receive.

Also, you're forgetting the tank action that happened in ODS (even if it ultimately was a turkey shoot), and while we're at it, that there wasn't a whole lot of tank warfare in 'Nam. ODS and OIF veterans are still very much around.

[TotenDead]

1 час назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Also, you're forgetting the tank action that happened in ODS (even if it ultimately was a turkey shoot), and while we're at it, that there wasn't a whole lot of tank warfare in 'Nam. ODS and OIF veterans are still very much around.

ODS has little similarities to the current conflict. There was one occasion where armor was used as extensively and in large numbers: in the short-lived counter-offensive. And I suppose we both remember how that led to dozens of western IFVs and tanks burning on a small piece of land. Those types of operations are suicidal in the current conflict. Unlike ODS, you can't really surprise-attack anywhere in mass formations, neither side has (or has enough) tech advantage

As for the first part, I'm sure that western countries would face similar problems. Don't know the extent and how long will it take them to adapt tho


We really digressed from EF tho and should probably end this pretty interesting topic XD

Edited February 23 by TotenDead

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, TotenDead said:

And I suppose we both remember how that led to dozens of western IFVs and tanks burning on a small piece of land. 

Yeah, most of them Bradleys, the shortcomings of which had been well documented by then. Friendly fire also factored in, US lost as many soldiers to accidents as it did to enemy action. Those problems had all been fixed, more or less, by the time of OIF.

The point is, it's all about who's driving the vehicle. Be it Abrams or Eurofighter, it's essential to use both realistic exercises and theoretical instruction, to have it consistently applied across the entire force and to appoint officers who are concerned with delivering results on the battlefield, not playing office politics. One of Ukraine's fundamental problems is inconsistent quality of their forces. You've got some good units, you've got some crap ones, all mixed together and usually, the enemy figures out which is which before their commanders do. \

The point was, while the F-35 may approach the "I win button" level, the Eurofighter won't. The pilot is more important than the aircraft itself.

[halfcard]

The way the world is going right now there's probably more chance of flying a real one than the virtual one.

[Mapi]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb halfcard:

The way the world is going right now there's probably more chance of flying a real one than the virtual one.

hehehe