Yes, but 27R is 1,9 while 27T is 2,425; i cant just throw +0,525 of CX on CAMM spec
i mean to be fair, they probably just adjust drag for each missile to meet its launch specifications (as we have launch data for both r-27r and t, and by simply adjust drag they can make it meet those launch conditions). while asraam, i doubt we have launch ranges/conditions for it
Spoiler
1 Like
Boys, I suggest you start collecting all the docs you can for the dev server.
For a quick reporting spree.
I think Gunjob and Flame have been preparing for years.
2 Likes
If there would be a subscription for his work - I’d pay.
I’ll personally ready to come under every bugreport of them and scream “HELL YEA”
1 Like
Roughly about 1.05/s a bar, so 4.20/s for a full 4 bar +/-100°. With a mech scan rate 190°/s.
The E-Scan rate is 571°/s.
4 Likes
Its a Speedy Boiii ))
With other E-scans in game sitting at about 220? damn.
Holy refresh rate
Lofting is advertised on both variants of the missile. It’s also the only way for it to reach the correct range parameters, especially if burn time is decreased (while keeping overall deltaV)
Both the MICA IR and ASRAAM would have slightly higher drag. Iirc ASRAAM should have very slightly less deltaV than CAMM since the later has a (very) small booster to give it some speed in ground launch configuration - although the small weight difference could be accounted this way ?
Probably has to do with the speed of the munitions ig. Or the 27mm has a placeholder value while Vulcan has better precision ?
MICA has one of the largest drag coefficient. Seeing as the ASRAAM is an even faster missile and gaijin’s drag model is very crude, it might get a similar or even greater drag (plus the fact that it has a less aerodynamic seeker)
Isn’t the E SCAN of current ESA radars just guesswork tho ? With the devs claiming that they « physically could not scan any faster » ?
1 Like
My figure isn’t guess work though, its based on information on CAESAR and lines up with the BAE Simulation produced for ECRS. I can’t speak to the other E-Scan radars in game, not something I’ve spent time looking into.
1 Like
I somewhat remember a spiel from stepanovich on the RBE2 ESCAN speed being this « slow » because he claimed that the radar had to wait for the return of the signal at the speed of light across its entire range or something like that - basically a discretisation of the sky coverage in small sectors the size of the beam that need to be scan individually and only when the radar gets a return from scanning the area can it move to another. Considering the ECRS have higher ranges than the rafale that’s why I asked.
I found his explanation dubious because to me the whole point of ESCAN is that you can scan one point of the scan while receiving signals from others simultaneously…
I can’t speak to how he came to that conclusion since the AN/APG-81 has a public demonstration of its speed;
4 Likes
Is the influence that big? The speed of light is 299.792 km/s, for a 200 km range (400 km travel per impuls) it would mean around ~750 impulses or sectors per second (if only one sector is scanned per pulse but AESA can do multiple in parallel AFAIK). Double that at half the range and so on.
ASRAAM has more delta-V than CAMM: it is lighter with the same motor. CAMM is propelled out the tube by a piston in the launcher, not it’s own motor.
5 Likes
CAMM has some sort of turnover motor no?
That gets its own fuel separate from the main booster or is it included in the fuel calculation?
It has a turnover pack to angle the missile after it has been pushed out of the tube, but the turnover pack does not provide any actual propulsion to the missile, just lateral thrust to get the nose pointing in the right direction.
Also I should note that diagram has been shown time and time again to be laughably inaccurate when it comes to the sizing of missiles and their rocket motors.
2 Likes
Pretty sure thats slower than it actually is and was only done that way for visual purposes, but its a touch faster than the minimum 560°/s we have from @Flame2512 source on the E-scan vs M-scan.
More like ~120-150°/s, N011M being an outlier at 213°/s at its fastest.
ECRS, if modelled according to available sources, will scan ~4.5x faster than the other ESA’s in-game, and ~2.25x faster than the fastest scan rate for the N011M.
Refresh rate for the ESA radars in-game is independent of scan speed.
2 Likes
I see
I was not arguing the propellant amount from this diagram. I also know it’s highly inaccurate in the amount of fuel, but they do give information on where the fuel tanks globally are