I am not sure if I follow? The company brochures normally refers to the latest version which according to the magazines have support for a2a, so I don’t see a discrepancy? Or are you referring to something else?

Come to think of it, you are probably correct, although, technically speaking i dont see why a thermal system can detect ground target but not air targets, well may be old version of Litening don’t have automatic searching mode i guess

How about “The Military Aviation Folder” (me), sorry i tried lol

Not gonna lie, this thread is actually much better because you guys arguing

No Nic its even simpler than that. You don’t fire at an aircraft you haven’t identified as a para-dropper or bomber. That Buk didnt defend the rebels did it?. It killed hundreds of innocent people. You do not have the right to do that!. So the moral of the story is ‘if you dont know what you are shooting at don’t shoot’ that goes even in time of war.

If you misidentify the aircraft, as can happen, then you hold your hands up and say ‘you know what….we got that wrong…..really sorry’ and you pay the penalty deemed equal to your crime. None of this is complicated.

Agree, but then even if the Rebel did it, i dont think there is any way to make them pay

Didn’t the Gripen E get heavier than expected or sth?

OK, how exactly does it work? I understand it has laser spot tracking which is great for A-G but virtually useless for A-A..

It is an infrared system , infrared system doesnot care targets is on ground or on the air.
And thermal system doesn’t use laser spot tracker for air to air but rather laser range finder

It has proven itself against fighters having used radar illumination as the only possible means of providing a target solution. Hardly a coincidence.. Someone wanted very much to see this fighter prevail..

Both F-15E and F-16 have sniper-XR though

A valid question. I think its not a either one or the other, but both;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248563[/ATTACH]

As you can see on the graph on the left, MiG-29 has varying a Cd = 0,027 at M0,9, it has Cd = 0,05 at transonic, dropping down to Cd=0,047 at M1,4. That is simply too much Cd0 for us to talk about supersonic optimization. While Typhoon will have Cd0 ballpark similar to MiG-29 at supersonic, it being a delta could mean much lower Cd0 at supersonic speeds.

Flying at M1,2 @ 8000m would produce 6955 kg force of drag. MiG-29 has only around 6000kgs of dry thrust. 16% more thrust required.
Flying at M1,4 @ 8000m would produce 9086 kg force of drag. MiG-29 has only around 7000kgs of dry thrust. 29% more thrust required.

If EJ-200 behaves similarly to RD-33 on dry thrust (if designed for supercruise, it should perform even better on dry thrust), it already has 20% more dry thrust. Reduction in Cd0 by 30-40% at supersonic speeds is entirely plausible for Typhoon, so despite having inferior inlet performance, its not improbable that Typhoon can supercruise and MiG-29 can’t.

This is what confuse me , if the varible inlet allow superior thrust performance on Mach 0.9 range , shouldnt the same thing happend supersonic ? .Since it is very unlikely that Typhoon intake would be optimized for supersonic rather than subsonic IMHO