Excluding the Gripen (Sweden, Britain and Italy) they are also found on the Viggen D and F-14B (also missing from the F-15C I think)
But basically all Rank 8 Briitsh aircraft use BOL (even the Tornado Gr1 should have them, but doesnt yet)
They are very common on a lot of modern NATO aircraft due to their small size, large volume of Countermeasures and effectivenss at defeating Gen 5 IR missiles.
The worse affected aircraft are the Tornado F3 (due to limited ability to defeat missile kinematically and get into the notch quickly) or SHar FA2 (due to the extremely “hot” nature of the Harrier engine, it would really benefit from better flares) both are struggling at the moment from the nerfs.
BOL is so ineffective that IRCCM missiles are almost impossible to defeat without dropping dozens and dozens of CMs and throttling to idle most of the time in both the F3 and FA2.
There was an issue when the Gripen was added that people were immune to IR missiles by just dropping flares at regular intervals (the reason for the original nerf) but with the introduction of ARH and the reduction in MP. This should no longer be as large of an issue and what issue is left is fixed by the burn time reduction.
But there is no excuse for the chaff being nerfed by 75%.
One thing that I want to see is aircraft IR signature measured by the engine exhaust temp, and not by the engine temp. For example, on the Harriers the engine might be really hot but the exhaust is spread throughout the four nozzles and is also somewhat diluted; it should be lower temperature, and “harder” to track. This affects all aircraft, some more than others, another big one is the F-5s, their engine temp being really low but the large external IR signature of the afterburning engine is somewhat… not modeled.
I would also like to see it tuned per missile basis.
At least in the sim community, the people that are saying that Multipath is “essentially gone” with the 60m change and not working anymore, are the same people that are still quite consistently relying on it and doing well. Of course the Phoenix is a bit of an exception where the massive warhead of it will sometimes still damage the target, however it is incredibly easy to defeat in other ways.
Gaijin also addressed and fixed the 3 main concerns regarding the change. Tree heights, Stock grind and compression.
Yeah, lost part of my wing to one in the F3 the other day from the splash damage. Was using notch, chaff and MP and still got hit by the splash damage, though the F3 has basically no Chaff and cant notch as hard as other aircraft (even though it should be able too)
So I do feel other changes would be needed. Like fixing BOL and adding appropriate Chaff pods to aircraft (like Phimat) but with that, MP could be removed just fine, especially in Sim. Its annoying to have most of my missiles defeated by someone just flying low.
Didn’t that Tornado receive a ton of large countermeasures recently in it’s BOL, with the AJ37?
In sim, I think we should add some spawn protection before reducing MP to realistic levels for very modern missiles, either by letting people be invincible 30 seconds from rolling or adding some new air defense that isn’t the insanely outdated Roland 1. It’s honestly laughable at anything past 9.0 imo.
Probably way too complicated. People shouldn’t be firing into an airfield on people taking off anyways, I’d rather just have people be invincible x amount of time from rolling on the runway. Not in a bubble as people would just run to airfield to escape people.
Or just an actual good air defense system that’ll at the very least make it inconvenient for enemies to fly in there, maybe it can intercept missiles too
The greatest weakness of the ET is that its IRCCM is only effective within guns range, so it is extremely prone to being defeated accidentally without the target ever being aware that the missile was launched against them. It is common for 27ETs to be defeated by flares that were deployed with the intent to defeat a third party’s 9M/R-73/magic 2. For the ET to deviate from pursuit of the target plane to instead chase a missile that was launched some other player.
Most ETs are defeated without the target ever knowing that someone was shooting at them. They’re most useful in modes like SIM where players are more likely to spread out and have extended periods of silence where an ET might suckerpunch them. But air RB has tiny maps where too many players are condensed into too small of a space. Everyone is shooting at everyone and defending against everyone, which gives precious little windows of opportunity long enough for an 27ET to cross the gap to the target without them deploying any flares or missiles.
I already said to drop this discussion. Historical factors and performance enhancements beyond the original only apply to American planes. The R-27ET should have the same sensor as the R-60M because it’s Russian, not an IRCCM that’s 2 to 3 times better than the one on the R-73 >:)
The 27ET has worse IRCCM than the R-73. They make use of the same IRCCM technique, but the 27ET’s FOV is larger than the FOV of the R-73. I don’t remember the precise numbers off the top of my head but the R-73 has the narrower FOV which makes it more effective at defeating flares.
Even based on thrust, I still think it just isn’t modeled well. It’s not like in DCS where the missile has a chance to go for flares, here it feels like it either does or it doesn’t, with no in between.
Maybe that’s just me being bad tho lol