Forgot ECM + Towed Decoy :3
Hmm, how about the Tpod for the AMRAAM Mounting/Bay?
Britecloud too
Just nitpicking since you say IRL performance (not that I disagree with the overall loadout tho)
Not in service (afaik), although it saw testing in the EFT
Not actually tested as far as I know, so this might be the one weapon that isn’t quite ready to be added in game
But let’s be honest, AGM88E + spear 3 would be plenty enough (cry in no ARM on rafale)
This would honestly make thing so much better for every plane
100%. And we are not helped by REDFOR basically only doing air to air from 15km altitude at Mach 2 and basically spawn camping people taking of from airfields
(Which is allready enough for WT)
or just disabling the hard requirement for a TPod with multi-mode wepaons that include SAL and then just using the PIRATE to set aiming points for GNSS release
1 Like
(We forgot the ESM)
Yeah yeah I was just nitpicking since he said “IRL” ahah.
As far as I know only Spear EW could not be added from his weapons list, but that’s honestly not as important as the other imo
In reality, what do you think the IRL BOL should be set to? I understand that even on a weight basis, it would be more perform than it is now, but should actual BOL also account for dispersion caused by wake turbulence?
Been test fired from the EFT which is more than what we have for the KH-38MT
2 Likes
That one thing that is good about AASM. There’s already a GNSS only variant so you can do just that with the Mirage 2000 RMV
IR BOL at least doesn’t see that much dispersion when you see thermal images of the system fired. It basically blinds missiles from behind behind a substantial cloud of IR emissions.
I’d expect the electromagnetic cloud to have a similar pattern. The wake turbulence of the plane seems to actually increase the size of the cloud
1 Like
Returning it to the standard chaff size would be acceptable for now, given that all chaff uses the same soviet chaff stats for standard and large respectively. Between higher volume and the wake effect it should be set higher than regular chaff, but not high enough to be on-par with large. So whilst CMs are generic, it should just fall in line with them.
BOL IR though should be uniquely modeled as it is substantially more different to flares
1 Like
Yep, they should be highly effective in rear aspect and see a big drop off in effectiveness in side aspect, at least more so than regular flares, imo
would make for a more unique mechanic as well so it’s always good
I want GNSS only variants of so many weapons like PW4, if the TPod is hard requrement that cant be gotten rid of, that should be other choice, GNSS-only versions of any weapon that has GNSS
1 Like
Would also be nice to create custom loadouts whilst in game. I’ve been annoyed several times because I could not do the exact combination of GNSS, laser and IIR AASM + other types of weapons to adapt to the situation in NE
vs IIR Missiles yes, but vs any regular IR missile, then if anything it would be more effective than a regular flare because something like an AIm-9M might not even recognise it as a flare and not switch the seeker off, and instead swap targets.
Getting out of my depth here, but at the end of the day, its a large blob of IR signature regardless of aspect, only aspect that would be less effective is probably front aspect and only because the BOL IR drop direct rear and not get jettisonned away from the airframe
That too, wanted that for ASB since custom loadouts were added, something like the GR7 is annoying at times because you want a very very specific setup and have to make do with the dozen+ customs you have pre-made
Spoiler
1 Like
Isn’t 9M seeker looking for the spectral emission of flares ? If anything, I would expect Spectral flares fair better than BOL against these types of seeker
Yeah, I don’t really know how effective it is front aspect. Is the IR emission from behind the aircraft powerful enough to be capable of hiding the plane ? This would decide wether “normal” seekers could lock the plane. Meanwhile I don’t expect it to be too effective against multi band seekers
I dont know, but BOL I think is calibrated to have the same IR signature as an aircraft, so it might not.
My thinking for why it would be less effective in front aspect is that even if the missile swaps to it, then its still going to hit the aircraft via prox fuse, if you start turning, its not front aspect anymore its side aspect and I cant think of any reason why BOL IR would be less effective than any other flare for regular IR missiles
vs gate-width theyd likely be more effective due to their release position