I really hope we see ECM/Decoys, would change the dynamic quite a bit of many aircraft. Though also want it paired with seperated Chaff and full Chaff counts. Need to cause an ecological disaster in the Tornado everytime someone fires a missile at me :P
1 Like
doubt we’ll get a rafale or typhoon considering the typhoon would outperform literally everything and the mica is more equivalent to a 120c5
Yeah, aren’t the Tornadoes missing like 600 chaff?
Yeah it not in due to a game limitation
600 chaff per BOZ pod. So 1200 total.
Tornado GR1s should have (and hopefully will get) 2x BOL rails too.
So 56 flares and 1200 chaff for most.
56 flares, 1200 chaff and 320 of whatever we wanted on the Tornado Gr1.
(though Sky Shadow ECM pod does replace a BOZ pod)
(additionally, Tornado F3 should be able to replace a 9L with a Phimat Chaff pod as well. So that would also be a lot of chaff Community Bug Reporting System)
1 Like
It could do that but it also turns out it can carry a pair of Phimat in place of drop tanks, so you could carry two chaff pods and four sidewinders.
do you know that AV-8 harrier II of the Italian navy can mount AMRAAM?
I will never understand why players want their aircraft to be worse in-game just cause squadrons made decisions IRL.
@rikidesert_00
Yes.
1 Like
I hope they put them so I can be taken more seriously in the game as an aircraft because as good as they are AIM 9Ms can’t threaten anyone from a distance
In what way? The C-5 is an improvement over the B in energy management and retention along with a more powerful motor that extends range by 50%. The MICA-EM has a minimal range advantage over the AMRAAM-B. The MICA’s advantages primarily come from its thrust vectoring which gives it excellent manueverability off the rail, but after burnout (6 seconds) that drops to below-average 30g.
Assuming a Mach 1 sea level launch and taking the 1km/s dV of the VL-MICA as reference, that burnout is at a range of “only” 5km. A Mach 1 inbound speed of the target bumps this up to 7km.
So the MICA is uniquely capable in a dogfight, but relatively poor in BVR compared to other Fox-3s listed.
Combine that with the minor disadvantage of a smaller warhead and the much more significant disadvantage of only having 6 missiles to others’ 8 or 10 and I’d say the Rafale is justified at a lower BR. If it ends up being too powerful it’d be simple to move it to 13.3.
1 Like
the only problem is that it gets really difficult as NATO for example has certain standards for not just the mounting hardware but also the communications protocol, the electrical connections and basically everything else so in theory you could take (for example) the AGM-84H from the F-18 and mount it onto a Tornado…
So where would you draw the line?
I cannot find anything about the F-4F ICE having HMD if that’s what you’re referring to
Yeah, though I think in SB I’d prefer the fuel tanks. Maybe if the choice was 9Ms or Phimats i would look at the extra effort of fuel management.
In ARB Yeah, its an easy choice to take the Phimat pods over fuel tanks
Is the AN/ALQ-119 capable of carrying flares like the sps-141?
No, it’s ECM only.
It would be awesome if Gaijin did like a April Fools event where we got VTOL VR aircraft with ECM and super modern Fox 3s as half baked test.
Wrong for sweden, both gripen A and C can carry amraams, and Smin stated the gripen C is going when it has a major difference. 1 missile isn’t a major difference gaijin, shit like the f16 adf vs f16c is a difference.
Ironic you should bring up the ADF when its only difference from the A is missiles
What about the F-15A+? It also had the ability to carry AMRAAMs as it got a MSIP.