Imo, the issue isn’t BVR. In that C5 should be more than enough with buffs.
The issue is WVR and so what is needed is IRIS-T and ASRAAM. MICA EM and MICA IR are extremely similar kinematically so it could be argued that the Rafale already has a version of it’s IRIS-T and ASRAAM equivalent which is why it’s so strong in WVR.
Similarly for R-77-1 it’s short range performance is what makes it so strong. As well as quantity carried.
I know that the Rafale and Sukhois are stronger WVR.
My point was that, perhaps they should remain that way where the devs could choose to give Eurofighters the edge in BVR.
As you say the C5 should be able to handle that but it isnt. I dont even carry more than 2 C5s anymore. I launch those at 30km at whatever target I can find that has the worst RWR. Usually any Sukhois I can find.
Other than that I carry 120Bs which I find are slighly more maneuverable despite having the same G overload. Then there are 2, 9M’s which are mostly useless.
Maybe 2 more 120Bs will help somewhat but WVR I fear they might only slow me down with their weight since their off bore, close range, capabilities are laughable
well aim-120d has no launch restrictions like r-77-1 or mica. so you can fire it from the notch, which you cannot do with the other aim 120s as they have launch limit which corresponds to their gimbal. But the aim 120 turning ability is so terrible that it might as well not have it.
(this is a full sphere)
I think between AESA and the ability to fire AMRAAMs with a LOT of energy, BVR is fine with C5 fixes.
The BVR buff I think we need more than anything right now is BOL fixes
Which fixes would that entail for both C5 and BOL?
C5. Narrow the beam width, this would make it harder to chaff. Its also missing kinematic performance at long range. Finally a smokeless motor would help a lot with the contrail changes. Allow for some stealthier shots
BOL is totally ahistorical and the chaff should be about 4x more effective than it is currently at a minimum. The BOL flares get really complicated but would also be a LOT stronger
are you sure those arent just marketing lies?
In all seriousness though, I’d really like that. Maybe AMRAAMS wouldn’t be completely useless that way, That’d be nice.
How is the effectiveness of Chaff measured? Where’s the figure of 4x come from? Not doubting you in the slightest btw. I am just curious
The current mass of each chaff packet is 1/4 that of what it should be IRL which should be akin to a standard calibre chaff, but stronger for various reasons. Let me find the breakdown
That’s an excellent writeup indeed.
Seems that the original effectiveness should indeed be reinstated. Then again, currently BVR is already easy enough in the defense.
Bear in mind that I am objectively not good at top tier combat. But anytime I’ve died to a WVR radar missile I would probably have died too with the more effective BOL launcher.
I get way to close and then get a MICA or R77 shoved somewhere the sun does not shine because I cannot notch in time anyway.
It would be most useful up close though.
But it impacts loads of aircraft so is really important
That’'s a fair point it impacts tonnes of stuff.
I mean I never meant to imply I was against reinstating the original effectiveness.
Yes, that’s the official website
In theory it should, constantly changing pulse frequency should make it much harder for the RWR to associate targets, as they could be operating in two completely different bands,
I’m pretty sure though the varying frequency and short pulse length should see the missile filtered out as clutter as I’m sure RWR filters look for energy spikes across a frequency range which is adjusted for background noise, meaning the RWR would see a momentary spike appear at one frequency and then a pulse of a different period and different peak at a different frequency
Depends on how LPI is implemented. The easiest form is using the minimal power and gradually reducing it with shortening distance, always operating slightly above the limit of the Signal-to-noise ratio. This causes the RWR to think the target is further away than it is and/or that it’s stationary as the signal power isn’t rising. Frequency hopping is another method, pulse-compression exists too and many more.
Just a thought the eurofighter EJ200 engines were built with a 30% performance growth in mind as the engine matured throughout its lifetime. Is there potentially a case here that with the new radar the improved engines are needed to power the new radar? AESA radars need significantly more power you couldn’t just drop in ECRS and expect it to powered adequately there has to of been some kind of improved power delivery to power the radar set of ECRS. Am I just grasping at straws?
kinda lol.
IDK about ecrs, but irbis for example, the new radar the su-30sm2 (that it shouldnt have) was tested on a su-30 with the old al-31f engines, while the plane that actually uses irbis has the al-41f1s engines which have about 16% more thrust. But even with the old engines it could still use the new, more powerful radar.
New engines aren’t required for a new radar, even if it has much increased power draw
It’s me letting the monkey in my head smash the symbols 😅 was just a thought as I know for some planes it has been needed. I guess the test bed Su30 might not of allowed the radar set to operate at its full potential with al31fs? But we will never know.
I’ve been trawling the web to see if any of the thrust improvement programs for the EJ200 have gone anywhere yet as the plan was to have the 120kn engines potentially as early as 2010 just don’t know if it progressed any further