STAIRS-C is the thermal imager for Starstreak. Where does it say specifically, the same imager is used in Eurofighter?
I would say it’s better to leave it as it is until TWS IRST can be implemented
You have two sensors, a Wide FOV sensor which is used for detection, and a narrow sensor which is used for tracking and detection.
Currently the IRST is a placeholder and it’s impossible to implement accurately.
Should be a 10.66° x 8° FOV scanning the entirety of the field of search which in and of itself should be no greater than 120° x 45°.
Ping me when there would be enough cope from frenchie, so I could have a laugh
Mulatu_Astatke get a job or focus on your lessons because youre here all the time MEIN GOTT
This will need a wider IRST update to implement.
Aka, not possible with the current IRST system which the code is copied from the Russian OEPS on the Su27 and Mig-29 which are only capable of search with no ranging and stt with ranging using a laser rangefinder.
Similar reports have been made for the Rafale’s OSF.
It is not expected for things to change tomorrow.
You realise the same detector/sensor can be used to produce different fields of view using different lenses?
The report does not cite STAIRS-C performance for the FOV of PIRATE.
It cites a paper published by PTO outlining the technical limitations of the IR detector (which was used for PIRATE) concerning a multimode FLIR/IRST.
A vertical FOV of 8° was necessary for efficient false alarm rejection - which is especially prevalent for a single band LWIR IRST such as PIRATE.
I think the bait is a bit too obvious this time. Although you have had some good ragebaits in the past (whether intentional or not).
So what practical difference do you expect that to make in game?
Also where are you even getting your claimed current FoV numbers from?
Rather annoyingly, gaijin doesn’t model the laser rangefinder whatsoever and it functions off of… magic seemingly (unfortunately completely invalidating the LWR on the FGR.4)
@Gunjob I am wondering, while looking trough the EF Reports I just noticed that no one did an report/Suggestion for the Towed Decoy of the EF, would such an report be forwarded as Suggestion or would it be just labelled as not an bug reffering to Smins comment back then to something with not planned?
Edit: I just looked at the comment,
Smin never said not planned, he was just referring to the Patch back then
1 Like
A suggestion report isn’t required for TRD. Devs are well aware of it. Simply it’s a technical limiting factor at the moment with the physics of a towed object and it’s behavioural properties in the air.
But it’s not ruled out forever.
10 Likes
Well your tests are off.
I’ll test to mach 1.95 just for you, will post results within 1 hour of this post.
Test drives also use spaded performance.
@Drag0oon
Of course you think Typhoon’s a lie.
Typhoon’s acceleration has no change to mach 1.5.
3 Likes
Not needed but, would be an Report for it still be welcome or like HOSBO allready on an Internal list?
I wonder, what is allready reported Internally, since they are still some reports untouched for stuff like GBU-24 / 32 and Taurus KEPD-350
Alvis did tests showing with BVR loadout. His conclusion was that the Rafale is closer to F-16C than the Eurofighter or F-15E. Not sure how you came to a different conclusion.
@MythicPi
Still 81 seconds to 10,000:
132 seconds to 1.5:
226 seconds to 1.95:
Rafale: 93 seconds to 10,000 meters. [2 seconds of video was the beginning not accelerating.]
152 to mach 1.5:
210 to mach 1.95:
210 - 152 is 58 seconds, and 152 - 93 is 59 seconds.
226 - 132 is 94 seconds, and 132 - 82 is 50 seconds.
F-15E is identical to the 9 minutes of AB spreadsheet except the 1.95 isn’t posted, and that’s 225 seconds, identical to Typhoon until you realize that mach 1.5 is a difference of 15 seconds in Typhoon’s favor.
5 Likes
Sustained turn rate?
2 Likes