no
thats just not true
its probably an issue of computation on the N035 and N011M
there isnt really a reason why you wouldnt be able to do that with a PESA
1 Like
Surely the useable beam fraction is nowhere near 1000 though? Not sure what one individual T/R module can do, it’s not my expertise but i would have expected it to be like something like 50 modules per update, which would give you 20 beams, or 10 + 500 for scanning.
that would make more sense, was just basing it off the fact that none of the aircraft pesa’s irl can do that, but then I remembered ground based PESA’s can
This is a code limitation. There is no (existing) way to change the area which ESA updates are covering based on where the beam is pointed, only based on where the radar itself is pointed. Because tthe typhoon, gripen, the radar can perform a 200 degree scan across its entire field of regard, this means that either the ESA coverage would have to not work at all for the sides while in a 200 degree scan, or it has to overperform. If the 200 degree scan didn’t exist, this wouldn’t be an issue. That’s why Su-30SM2 doesn’t have a full ESA coverage (as its maximum scan is 120)
tldr gaijin sucks at coding and that’s why.
1 Like
lmao
Seems like the list can be updated with Rafale DI and Rafale EI from Indonesia now
3 Likes
This matter has already been submitted as a report. Link
Gunjob said that they created an internal report on this matter. However, they also mentioned that they would hold off on the implementation because it would make the code too complex.
@Gunjob Right?
and you might want to go test it right now
bc the N011M Bars dosent do that anymore
Right now there is a single value for ESA scan zone updates, so in order for a the full section scan (200°/180°) on the ECRS’s & Raven to work the ESA zone must be that large. This implementation is consistent even in the “ESA” only scan sector selections as all selectable sectors operate at the mechanical speed and not the full speed ESA speed of 560°/s.
For a more realistic simulation a number of changes to how ESA radars function in game would need to be implemented. There is no way to do it at present that doesn’t just make it wrong in the other direction.
3 Likes
1 Like
We know currently that the MICA NG’s will feature new seekers, dual pulse motors for extended range, and two-way datalink. But it also seems that the MICA NG’s will feature greater maneuverability over the current MICA unless a French speaker could correct me.
Spoiler
Source: Fiche LPM - Mica NG (missile nouvelle génération).pdf
Could it be because of the dual pulse? Longer time at 50 Gs, maybe first pulse is weaker and therefore missile doesn’t compress and can turn better (more degrees, less Gs), but has better delta V and grain profile?
1 Like
Yeah maybe it’s something like that, because the outside is the same.
MICA NG won’t be using TVC for better maneuverability?
It does, the problem is getting more maneuverability without a design change, normal mica also has tvc.
So like it was said, it’s probably more maneuverability but meant as mica level over a longer period because of the dual pulse.
1 Like
Then I would imagine it would say “greater maneuverability at longer ranges” and not “greater maneuverability and greater range”.
The only thing I can think of that could make an impact like that is a center of mass shift.
While the outside is the same, the inside is completely different it seems.
The datalink is already different
The seekers are already different
The motors are different
The proximity fuzes are different
The batteries and other electronics are different
Would it be a surprise if the servo-motors and other tvc components are different?
“Inside however, it will be an entirely new missile”
Spoiler
1 Like
the fact the “plus grande manoeuvrabilité” is paired with “allongement de portée” makes me think they refer to the manoeuvrability on the entire launch envelope
And a longer burn will do just that tbh
Same. Maybe the servo-motors could be changed, but even with that the degrees of freedom would remain the saim. maybe the servo could activate faster, but that would not improve the maximum G load, just the response time. I also think that the other internal changes, overall better deltaV are what is giving the missile better maneuverability, as the missile weight is unchanged