I think I have to update the report with what I observed and described in this post:
TL:DR; I suspect a “ghost-lock” onto a non-existent target with a random movement vector. Happens if the active seeker is moved onto a flare (not when it’s activated on a flare) as far as I can tell. Would be helpful if somebody else could test this case too, because I could also be imagining things…
Harrier, an aircraft known for its low thermal signature.
What IR seekers in WT see when looking at an harrier:
Sombeody care to make a rising teletubby sun GIF with the harrier instead of the babyface? xD
Yep, definetly a fitting image… At least flame’s report got accepted, so there is an extremely dim light at the end of the tunnel
Regardless of the exaggerated harrier IR signature in WT, people fail to flare in harriers because they are 110% throttling the engine while it is activelly melting according to WT.
It doesn’t have an afterburner, but you still need to lower the throttle to like 90% or less while flaring. Same thing with the F-14, cutting afterburner might not be enough.
Another case is the mig-19 variants that takes ages to drop or regain engine thrust. So if you are flying an A-5C or similar, you need to wait a second after dropping your throttle for the engine to cool enough for flares to be effective
Nah. I’ve been at 70-80% throttle and failed to flare missiles with multiple flares before. The key is airspeed not throttle setting most of the time as the Harrier is hotter at lower airspeeds
That is because in warthunder thrust and temperature go hand in hand, so at slow speeds with the harrier you build A LOT more thrust and temperature and by consequence you need to adjust your throttle even more.
What you could flare while going mach 0.9 at 100% throttle, might not be flared while going 80% at slow dogfight speeds.
The inverse with supersonic jets also happens but its a very rare occurrence. Going very fast with the engine buiding a lot of thrust at medium-low altitudes and cutting afterburner won’t be enough because your engine will take a second or two to lower the thrust/temperature enough for flares to be more aptizing to the IR seeker
Yes, I know and exactly my point
Why aren’t the devs giving the EFT radars variable scan rates depending on the volume (full ESA, hybrid MECA ESA) just like the Russian radars have ?
I think it went center mass and fused on the ground behind it
Cuz they said no.
My understanding is that the mechanical part can only effectively point in a circle - 40 degrees from the boresight, and rotates around this sector continuously, or can stop and scan in any sector continuously.
This means the dish only rotates around a fixed point.
The ESA scans a 60 degree cone wherever the radar is pointed and can update the entire field in less than a second.
This means the radar scan area is actually a 200 degree CONE and should be able to update the entire field in less than the time it takes for the dish to perform a full rotation.
However, this means that it should be impossible to provide a track update when the esa cone of influence is not pointed at a target. However, in game, the radar is able to provide tracking updates outside the esa scan area of the radar every 0.1s.
This is actually a massive oversight and artificial buff to the radar.
That is how all ESA updates work for all ESA radars in game, if they pulled that the radars that would fair the worst are PESA’s, SU-30SM radar only has a +/-45° FoV for the E-Scan area.
So the wider your FoV the more you benefit, but inversely if it was fixed the smaller your FoV of your E-Scan area the impact is bigger.
Woah, didnt expect that eletronic scan being so narrow and azimuth so wide, EF with this big azimuth would be capable of ~300º of FoR
That’s why I asked why the EFT doesn’t have variable scan speed. The Su30 has a variable scan speed from my understanding because it’s mixed ESA/mechanical.
It’s also interesting to see that not only the EFT in full ESA sector but also the rafale (and probably others but I don’t know them) have worse ESCAN speed than the medium width scan pattern of the SU30 which, iirc, is already a mix of mechanical and ESA.
Never passed by a TM tho…
I like his suggestion of adding broken lines however.
Then, they could give slightly more realistic scan speed to the different modes of the EFT by given variable speed depending on the mode, the speed being the average of ESA + mech speed, just like what I assume they did on the su30. That would not make the radar mechanic much more complicated than it currently is
Primary sources are clearly marketing lies…there is no way the ECRS performs better than a soviet radar from 20 years ago
I’m now 99% sure the AIM-9M locks onto a ghost-target. Had a match where I tried to lock onto an F/A-18C at 9 km from behind while it was constantly flaring. Aquired a lock, fired the missile (yeah no chance it would catch it at this distance but anyway) and it just turned left downward into the ground. Tried to lock-on again with another missile, it locked solid but the lock drifted left downward (like the first missile flew before). Relocked, again drifted left downward for multiple seconds with a solid lock onto nothing. This is way too reproducable to be coincidence and the lock-drift before firing and the missile direction after firing is identical.
If this happens in flight when the target is flaring (not flaring while locking still on rail) and seeker shutoff should be triggered that would explain everything.
The thing is, there is no need to make things up, we have a primary video of scan speed, that matches written documents.
