source?
No current SAMs can counter a well flown Rafale/Typhoon even Pantsir struggles.
As a Brit none of your SAMS can deal with a competent Rafale pilot and they just destroy your team. Su-34 get the kills and then die.
Rafale go rearm and come back and the spawn cost for CAP aircraft (the only counter) is laughably high
they could add CRAM trucks to blast them out of sky, so we could get EFT revelant Brimstone II’s with mmw
Theres a reason why they stayed as considered and not executed
1 Like
Cost?
really? i thought such things were standardized across NATO mbt’s to protect against possible MMW weapons, such as the eurofighter’s brimstone (just an example)
Gameplay-wise, planes should never have the ability to “counter” SPAA’s. SPAA’s are literally the only thing protecting ground vehicles from AA. Planes can already kill SPAA’s even from within their range. They do not need the ability to hard counter SPAA with complete immunity, thats just horrid game design.
If you wanna see what OP CAS does to a ground mode, just go play top tier sim where air assets can spawn with any weapon loads they want right at the start. It isnt sim ground. Its sim air with unwilling human targets, which is why basically nobody plays it anymore. Thats why I think its good the Brimstone II’s arent on the Typhoon, and why I think all standoff munitions should be relegated to air only modes.
I think we’re really stretching the limits of the thread topic at this point lol, let’s move that to a ground forces discussion if you want more information on it.
that is literally what the point of some planes ingame is
1 Like
Now you are contradicting yourself. “doesn’t have” and “doesn’t compare” are two VERY different things.
a professional Olympics athlete might run a marathon in x minutes and John Doe 55 that hasn’t run since highschool might run it 30 times slower. that doesn’t mean that John isn’t running at all.
If it has it, it has it, no matter how bad it is or you think it is.
This is just straight up wrong though. Sensorfusion is even called “multi sensor data fusion” as that is exactly what it is. data fusion is the umbrella term, Sensor fusion is a subset (and a type of) of data fusion involving data from more than one sensor (it can even be the same type type of sensor, or different sensors, or even weirder; one sensor and a saved set of previously measured data).
That isn’t a requirement for sensor fusion though.
9 Likes
all of this is relevant to the implementation of the eurofighter’s most notable a2g weaponry, it has to be adressed as part of balancing.
I understand thats the point of them irl, but its just outright bad for gameplay. I dont understand how this is hard to get.
If you wanna outrange SPAA, you can do it in air battles just fine without ruining the game for everyone else.
Were getting madly off topic at this point tho.
as i am saying the whole time
The guy just ignores it cause he cant prove us wrong and it would show he is actualy wrong
My F6F with radar has sensor fusion because my eyes can look in the direction the radar has spotted something.
By some people, in this case wiki.
I agree, report it.
prove us wrong,
show us a clear definition of it besides your self proclamation
2 Likes
Eurofighter CFTs have gotta be close to, if not the ugliest thing someone has ever tried to strap to any plane
5 Likes
yea i hope that AMRAAM costs will be reduced as that is one of the only effective ways to protect your team from Kh38s.
Yea i agree that we need SPAAs for other nations that are Pantsir-equivalent in performance. Theres a reason why it is currently the most oppressive SPAAs ingame, and even if it struggles, if theres multiple pantsirs doing CAS is more and more dangerous as even if you kill one with brimstones youre still opened to die to the others.
(Plus the ability to intercept missiles, with majority of NATO missiles being slow at range)
It is all marketing, this is not a single word definition to be found in websters. The same goes for “supercruise”.
But they did. UK and Saudi tranche 3 even have mountings for them
1 Like
so by all means our definition of sensor fusion is as right as yours and you are compeltly wrong with claiming its not the whole time great
btw the earlier thing being named as sensor ffusion is more correct in that term
Since it was used longer in that regard as your self proclaimed one
2 Likes