You expect that devs will simply give you an AESA radar on the existing typhoon and not get you to grind an entirely new aircraft for it ?
It would not be the first time they’d do that either. Mirage 2000-5F was originally just that, and only got more missiles after a report made after its introduction.
1 Like
Yes? They did not make the French grind an entirely seperate Rafale to get AESA and the number of available upgrades to justify an entirely seperate Typhoon is very small.
Though they could add a new Typhoon with AMK, extra CMs, etc etc alongside the AESA, but that would still be sooner rather than later.
The more logical course of action at this time would be to add a new Typhoon for CAPTOR-M at a lower BR and not a new Typhoon for CAPTOR-E.
Rafale is in a different situation as it was already implemented with AESA from the beginning (for some reason).
I can’t think of any planes that got their radar changed retroactively, but I might be wrong. However, I saw an example of the opposite, where you’d have to grind for an entirely new aircraft to get an all aspect TWS with the mirage 2000-5F, which during introduction was identical to the C-S5 in every aspect but its skin and radar.
I suspect the devs will pull the same move for other planes to « give » them AESA radars as well.
Not saying that’s what I’d want.
Otherwise what could be an interesting addition would be to have AESA be a modification you can unlock, that could be an interesting way to introduce them to in game airframes
“BOL is modelled based on developer assumptions” is not a good look. There’s plenty of available information saying it’s better than in game, and almost none which would even suggest that it’s weaker than a standard countermeasure beyond “it’s smaller”, which isn’t exactly the extent of available info.
6 Likes
Tornado F3 got a MASSIVE radar buff 3 months after its introduction. Went from the earliest possible foxhunter variant to the latest (bar the DL needed for AMRAAM)
The Mirage C-S5 to Mirage 5F though also included MICA EMs. A rather notable change for aircraft and resulting in a large BR increase. It was a pre-emptive addition for the purpose of easy Fox-3 introduction. Like the AV-8B+, Gripen C, J-8F, etc etc.
And so is a different situation.
You could argue that the new Typhoon could come with ASRAAM/IRIS-T and Meteors alongside the AESA, but Id still expect said new AESA to come sooner rather than later. So an entirely new airframe, that is 100% identical bar a different radar hasnt yet been done. Though could come before those additions I suppose based upon the Mirage 2K
Possibly this could work, but it would still likely be on the current airframes
a lot of the strike aircraft get the placeholder f-5 radar that later gets changed to their actual radar (example is buccaneer, one harrier variant that i forgot and the aardvark)
Yep. It shows a clear and total failure to be able to actually research anything internally and the moment the counter-reports were submitted (including by a senior tech mod… ) they should have been reverted the same week or not even made it to live in the first place.
4 Likes
Issue: This is a gigantic capability jump and wouldn’t really be fit as a modification without a BR change. AESA aside that’s a ±100 degree scan region.
1 Like
Buc never did. It got the right radar, just took a year to go from the S2B to the S2 and S1.
It was the Sea Harrier FRS1 that had the F-5 radar for 9 months
2 Likes
agreed, just look at the su-30sm and su-27sm.
The su-27sm gets worse missiles and 2 less missiles and much better flight performance, but it gets literally the second worst radar at 13.7. While the su-30sm gets the second or third best radar in the game and is at 14.3 while having much worse flight performance.
clearly having an esa matters
ah, i must be misremembering/mixing them up then, thanks
1 Like
I understand why they were done initially - the gripen (and the harrier) were actually ruining entire BR brackets because they could simply cancel missiles for minutes straight without ever paying attention (I would always set 2 per 1 which resulted in 350 seconds, or just under six minutes of constant countermeasures) and get away with it, but now it wouldn’t break the game to fix it.
I disagree personally. (at least in regard to how they nerfed it)
If the 640 BOL was such a major issue, then the first stop should have been just to remove 2x BOL
between that and the burn time reduction (which is largely accurate) the issue would have been resolved.
If that continued to be a major issue, then total removal of BOL should have been the next step. 80 LCMs was plenty back then with a community note that they would return in the future (say 6 months later with Fox-3 update that totally eliminated the need for the nerf in the first place)
But… There was no justification for the changes to the chaff AND there was no justifcation to nerf everything else with BOL.
As for the Harrier… it was fine for 15 months and was only an issue when the Gripen was added.
Big problem with Harrier was it couldn’t get out of the way. With BOL not being properly modelled as a distributed countermeasure you were basically just putting heat signatures right behind you whenever you deployed whereas the base 60 would launch away from the aircraft. The original reason aside, I don’t quite understand the long process for reverting the nerf still. If at least the devs would come out and say why exactly they don’t want to it would help - the lack of transparency is honestly worse than the issue itself.
They just don’t want to touch it and are using “a lack of sources” as an excuse to bury their heads in the sand.
“Submitted as a suggestion” just directly translate to “we probably won’t be implemented anytime soon but we’ll keep it in mind in case we decide something underperforming in the future”
1 Like
Imo, the “proper” way to model it in-game would be to give it even higher intensity than large caliber flares, but keep the current short duration it has. That’d be the “best” way to model a pyrotechnic countermeasure that works by blocking out the view of the aircraft with a large IR screen.
They could make it 2x “brighter” than the large caliber flares, but retain the current duration, which would basically make it a sidegrade to a large caliber flare instead of a downgrade from a normal flare.
Graph of current countermeasure modelling for reference:
5 Likes
Countermeasures do have a function in the code to act as a cloud. Chaff uses it. I see no reason why using the same intensity as a regular while set as a “cloud” (which would therefore have a wider area of effect, being much better against anything with gate width IRCCM especially) would be an issue.
100% on keeping the current shorter duration though.
4 Likes
Thatd actually be a great idea, hadnt thought of that.
I wonder if that can be modelled and tested in custom missions…
1 Like
Even just failing that.
Reverting most of the previous nerfs would be a good starting point and restoring them to largely standard calibre figures. With specific buffs coming afterwards to both flare and chaff performance
1 Like
Should be possible. I’m yet to convince someone to do it though and i’m not knowledgeable enough to do it myself.
You’d just need to create a custom “rocket” (countermeasures are rockets) with those changes.