the problem is that the mig-29 is a mig-29 with an abysmal flight model and bad Fox-3s for long range
Sure, but long range isn’t really the name of the game currently is it? R-77 ever so slightly outranges MICA EM and I wouldn’t say M2K has one of the best flight models post nerf, although still better than MiGs. Yet M2K is 13.7 with mica em that is shorter ranged with a MiG-29SMT capable of providing guidance while notching the target.
The real answer to why this theory doesn’t work out in practice is because while you may be notching one aircraft, you’re heading towards another aircraft coming from a different angle remaining exposed to them. I would wager SMT is quite fine doing this notching thing in a one versus one but we have a team game.
How useful will notching and guiding be in a 16v16?
1 Like
you cant only notch you can also go partly cold
while guiding in multiple radar missiles
i have a feeling that this will be the new meta
That is true but there’s a report forwarded for AESA radars to have reduced effectiveness off to the side compared to mechanical radars. I can’t say exactly how things will look two years from now once everyone has advanced AESA radars.
I personally doubt that F.4.2 will integrate GaN, at least on RBE2, as that could imply that we see RBE2-XG much earlier than F.5 - on SPECTRA its likely, we will see.
Sources do state F4.2 will integrate GaN for both RBE2 and SPECTRA. We also know from a French marketer that Dassault will release more info on this soon.
1 Like
if u notch in the smt your speed drops from mach 1 to like 900kmph , in eft you are still going to be supersonic , it will be much better than the mig29smt , it will be worse for the rafale in a 16v16 if its the only jet with ±70* azimuth coverage while majority of the rest (gripen e , eft , su35) have an azimuth coverage of ±100*. also the mig29 was kinda op in bvr back when it came out with ±90* azimuth.
Well I’m not gonna be arguing too much about this, Rafale’s gimbal limits will be ±70 and will remain as such for the foreseeable future. If that’s the case then that’s the case.
can you please just lock out the same like 5 people who constantly derail these threads, makes it very hard to follow discussions. More people talking about SU27s, Eurofighter and god knows what else…
Surprised to learn the MICA is pretty short range in game, i havent test flown the rafale yet, im kind of disappointed…
We don’t fight at long enough ranges. Most launches take place at 40-60km, there isn’t enough time to provide a meaningful crank before going cold. This is mainly because jets can pull like crazy to defend, but also chaff is just too powerful.
I don’t think AESA seeker would necessarily translate to anything that impactful in the game
More modern seekers will be given better stats than old ones and perhaps the AESA ones will have slightly better stats than mechanical ones of the same era …
But all in all, I don’t think there will be a huge difference, and they will all be notchable anyways …
Top tier France will be saved by the Dutch F-35 without that, much like the UK France are cooked.
Gaijin will never model the ECM suites on Typhoon or Rafale.
They have to model ECM at some point. Otherwise the game will just don’t proggress anymore.
I understand that ECM already exists in the Rafale at least
All planes that have chaff and flare have ECM
Spoiler
It’s called “passive ECM”
1 Like
Exactly, I understand that, but the WT Rafale has ECM due to the LWR and MAWS systems, the action of launching Chaff and Flares when it detects the approaching missile is part of ECM systems. This is active ECM against IR radiation.
Active ECM refers to the active radar jammers (that transmit something) and DIRCMs etc
We do have active IR jammers on stuff like Su-39 and helicopters
Spoiler
EDIT:
Actually some sources consider Flares as active ECM:
Spoiler
1 Like
Well I think I must be confused, but I did a lot of research on this topic (Related to the Kfir C10) and I found that active ECM refers to interference through signals received from the defender (Radar and/or IR) and passive ECM refers to physical countermeasures through RWR actions.
RWR itself is irrelevant here … It’s just a warning system
Whether you deploy the chaff/flare because you see the incoming missile visually or whether because you see the warning on RWR or if you have automatic deployment enabled makes no difference, in terms of it being ECM or not, or being passive or active …
Passive / Active refers to the thing that does the deception or jamming; And seems like different sources classify them differently …
E.g. Some classify flares as passive ECM, and some consider them active ECM (regardless of it being deployed automatically or manually).