That’s from TWR, not just raw thrust, and technically any jet with a TWR above 1.0 could do the same if they had the FCS to do so, they just aren’t designed to.
Its thrust curve just decreases as airspeed increases. Its basically just the opposite of a normal thrust curve.
As indicated in the linked devblog, thrust definitely should not be the single determining factor of the exhaust temp.
Also, it still wouldn’t make sense with the lock ranges seen against the F-14A for example, seeing as it can be locked at 30km+ through clouds in rear aspect by an R-60M (havent tested it recently tho, but i doubt they fixed that, since they marked the bug report as “not a bug”)
Itd be incredibly stupid to accurately model engine thermodynamics and then NOT use it for IR missiles. The devblog also specifically mentions radiated heat being modelled among other things, as well as heat being radiated from the correct components at the correct locations.
You can also just check in thermals to see variations in temps and locations on the jet.
True, but they do nonetheless have a lot of thrust when compared to other single engines.
For example Hunter F6’s Rolls Royce Avon engine produces around half the thrust of the Rolls Royce Pegasus Engine.
Spoiler
Given just how hard it is to defeat anything IR based in a Harrier, something else must be at work, either that or they’ve really really screwed up
It doesnt state that IR Signatures for IR missiles (given they were added 3 years later) are affected by those features though. I’ve been wanting a Devblog on how IR signatures and flaring actually works in game.
I was having this… discussion with Smin a little while ago, and even he appears to have no idea how IR signatures actually work and took some time to explain the basic understanding of what the hell “Thrust to flare ratio” actually means
F-14 is a strange edge case that doesnt quite conform with all the known variables.
Im pretty sure its engine placement compared to CM dispenser placement, i cant see any other reason why it would struggle to flare stuff considering the flow chart
I have long assumed that maybe gaijin models each nozzle has a “hot” target.
Regardless of any in game factor anyone wants to throw around, the Harriers ability to decoy an IR seeker is extremely different than what is listed in its IRL manual.
IRL at full combat power even a rear aspect AIM-9L can easily be defeated by a single flare. Other sources have also claimed that by nozzling down slightly and covering the rear nozzle by rolling the plane, you can completely deny an enemy IR lock in the first place.
The BOL pods release point is ahead of the engine nozzles. These flares are actually behind the engine nozzles. The forward launch pattern might be to try to account for that.
I have no idea how they could possibly look at adding IIR seekers, even with a wierd placeholder IRCCM+ type thing, without overhauling IR signatures first
This was in the R&R a week or so ago, suggests that IIR will be dual IRCCM, so perhaps both seeker shutoff and gate -width or one of them plus a new type of IRCCM
We’ll have to wait and see. Having 2x Forms of IRCCM would make sense though, it could be gate width but switches off the seeker but for far briefer intervals when it sees a flare (or just for the first few seconds of the flight), if combined with push ahead, it could be very potent to flare but not quite as insane as IIR would be
