Still no Harrier fixes
no youll just chaff the radar.
its a stationary PD radar. u cant chaff it
clearly you don’t understand what relative velocity means. we can take S-200 as a good example as it is my username, it can’t even track targets that are notching even if they don’t drop chaff without losing a lock atleast once when they enter a notch, and its a stationry pd radar. Not sure if you know how these radars work.
You can chaff it in a notch as usual. then you might say “oh but its a look up situation”, it is not as simple. your radar isn’t a perfect cone, sidelobe radiation will cause reflections off surrounding objects so even a stationary radar gets sidelobe clutter, your filter won’t be as effective as you think because this close to ground you have tons of echoes from all kinds of things. there is hardly any way to differentiate a notching target with near zero relative closure from this clutter with chaff.
you can’t turn your filter off the way a moving airborne radar would. difference with s200 being you can also notch the seeker of the missile.
We were supposed to have a tech tree one within a year of getting the TRAM, but Gaijin failed another promise again…if it was Russian it wouldn’t have missed that promise.
otomatic is a meme, and italy won’t even get a new aa in this update, but man, adats is really good, in many situations I’ve lost kills to them when I’m in pantsir and I always die easily to them and to ito90 when I’m in f18c early or su30sm, even easier than to pantsir and the others.
To be fair, the USSR was supposed to get a TT BMD-4, but they got a premium one instead, so this isn’t a bias thing
2 Likes
The ADATS really isn’t that good unless the target is approaching the ADATS.
The missiles are terrible against maneuvering targets as it wastes all of its energy due to the way they try to follow the planes, rather than following the beam properly. And since the missile is so much slower than most SAMs it usually cannot keep up with fleeing planes.
Also, the ADATS’ radar is absolutely miserable, the IRST is nice to have, but that tends to be pretty unrealiable as well.
The 95Ya6 of the Pantsir and the VT-1 of the ItO 90 and FlaRakRad are much better in every aspect except for their usability against ground targets. The Pantsir, ItO 90, FlaRakRad and even the HQ-17 have much better radar sets than the ADATS as well.
1 Like
Clearly you must be imagining things because i never mentioned Vr.
Notching is a different matter than chaff.
Notching requires Vr to be near zero. And last i checked, chaff doesn’t do that.
Also for a ground radar, a constant notch would be a perfect circle around the radar with the radar at the center.
Quite hard to do for a human. And we still have the backup IR sights to worry about.
You dont even need to get into sidelobes and all that business because ground clutter doesnt affect SPAA that much. Even less in real life.
Considering you are using this faulty line of logic to argue against adding the primary modes of guidance for multitudes of SPAA in game, i dont think its the best course of action for you. Especially when the changes would increase spaa efficiency. Not decrease them.
They would ofcourse maintain saclos IR track guidance as a backup for higher ECM situations.
you obviously use chaff when notching and everyone knows this and this is also what you do against aircraft radars. this does not make them “un notchable” or “unchaffable” by any regard
Your argument is extremely weird and does not take into account the basics of how these situations work.
Ill suspect you don’t have a large amount of battles with top tier aircraft/spaa
i already told you why exactly it affects you spaa a lot too and this is why they need to use filters and is the basis for the whole situation
you don’t want me to get into that business because you don’t understand it.
also, interesting strawman argument about me not wanting the mode to be added, yes i want the mode to be added but no it does not make the radar unchaffable.
Then start with this next time instead of saying chaff as if the spaa radars are cw rather than pd.
If by weird you mean a simplification then yeah it is.
Youll suspect wrong.
Yeah. Its called PD and constant response filtering.
Wonder, why would you say that.
Especially since i was talking about how the MISSILE is un notachable and un chaffable.
Clearly the missile is not the same as the radar.
A handfull more
no? everyone knows how pd radars work. if you say theyre unchaffable it would mean that you can’t chaff them. you can in a notch, the same as aircraft radars. you seemed like you wanted to say that the roland’s radar is unchaffable as it is ground based (in comparison to what we have, that are aircraft radars)
well no i was not. i checked.
maximizing snr doesn’t take away the requirement for 0 gate filter, they are two different things and are used together.
because when you say unchaffable it creates the misconception that this radar is somehow different with being “unchaffable”, however it isn’t and it would play somewhat similar compared to aircraft radars. theyre chaffable too, the problem here is when you say the missile is unnotchable and unchaffable, it creates the misconception that when you get notched/chaffed, your missile will still go towards your target. No it won’t. it will steer at the chaff due to the command guidance.
This is why you have to take them into account in conjunction
where the radar locks is where the missile steers. if it loses the lock against an aircraft and goes into the chaff, that is where your missile is also going. I’m all in for the mode to be added but it won’t make your missiles “unchaffable unnotchable” because their guidance method relies on what the guidance radar is locked onto in their “automatic” modes.
So, is there going to be a single aircraft bug report fixed this major?
Still absolutely no fixes of bugs or major missing features from the Typhoon, Harriers or Tonkas.
They might not be adding many aircraft. Doesnt mean they cant fix aircraft added a few years ago
6 Likes
We gave Aim-120C5 to Typhoons so be grateful about it.
Gaijin
1 Like
Well… At the moment they are more like aim-120A+
Still waiting to see if they are actually going to add C5s or not to the game
Honest opinion? They will not anytime soon.
They don’t even model Python-5 nor Aim-9X properly.
They dont even model SRAAMs or Aim-9Ms properly
1 Like
thats whats i said, you shouldve stated from the start that u can only chaff em in the notch. however you said chaff period as if chaff is the trump card.
^ and thats all u said
so i have a low number of battles using modern radar systems?
constant or consistent response filtering is the filtering of reflections from static objects. while what you call it may vary, its not snr nor a zero gate
because it is, since it doesnt have its own seeker. my statement was correct especially, as you seem to imply, that you are much more knowledgeable about radar systems than me
which any experienced player would…
i believe you are missing a critical aspect of SARH missile and chaff interactions.
if you have ever lost lock due to chaff and relocked the real target, only to have your missile still miss and go for chaff because thats the highest return THE MISSILE could see, then you know what im talking about.
it is precisely this scenario that the RF-CLOS SAMs are immune from. because re-locking brings them back to the real target and does not risk them being led away by the chaff in their FOV
1 Like