and?
he said:
he didnt say “an older version without ESA”
detection range
It wouldn’t change anything.
The differences would not even matter on current map design.
2 Likes
Less range
Fewer tracked targets
Fewer datalink channels
Narrower gimbal limits (60° instead of 70° IIRC)
2 Likes
PESA is much different, it is literally mechanical with an instant steer rate essentially, aswell as a slight range increase due to wave interference,
But they could have got away with PESA, AESA they can’t as it makes such a difference
nah clearly we are going to get 256km x 256km maps before they introduce 5th gens or more advanced missiles
Higher maximum range in game in theory increases the probability of detection at all ranges.
1 Like
Surely… surely gaijin would realise something by the fact a eurofighter can smell an F-117 halfway across the map let alone anything that doesn’t look like a flying trigonometry class.
Except you’d lose the ability to update half your targets, you wouldn’t be able to pick up targets as quickly and you certainly wouldn’t be able to track 16 targets at once
How to fix:
Play SB mainly Afghanistan)))))
I wish they would bring the map into 2025
(Still 130x130 maps)
you do know the pesa of the su-30sm has the fastest scan speed in the game right
scan speed doesnt matter with esa radars
if you are luck enough to find anything that isnt denmark these days, that is
Brilliant, don’t remember the su30 radar being in a rafale though
Thats why I specially Search for Afghanistan, the Eurofighter can there realy show its power :)
That’s because the game doesn’t model them properly, in real life the difference between PESA and AESA is literally night and day for situational awareness and ability to defend yourself
Yet still much better than CAPTOR-M, which is the main complaint from a certain group - ignoring J/APG-2, N011M and uh, things.
That may be true, but you can’t compare IRL with current state of the game - literally night and day.
1 Like
everyone does but only few are lucky enough to find it
And have I said anything of the sort? No, that’s not even remotely what I was getting at, I was suggesting it’d make more logical sense, and be easier if they just limited it to PESA and Mechanical until a time when AESA can be implemented correctly
1 Like
Well then there shouldn’t be a problem of swapping the RBE2-AA with the RBE2 surely?