Its sad that they didnt bother modeling a proper IIR for the new missiles that are IIR irl ngl
F-16C-40 Barak II:
new loadout(s):
4x 1000 lbs SPICE 1000,
4x 2000 lbs GBU-64(V)1/B + 1x LITENING II,
4x 2000 lbs SPICE 2000
F-16D-40 Barak II:
new loadout(s):
4x 1000 lbs SPICE 1000,
4x 2000 lbs SPICE 2000
Spoiler
1000 lbs SPICE 1000:
missile → bomb
booster removed
mass: 446.8 → 490 kg
length: 3.008 → 3.2 m
drag coefficient multiplier: 1.75 → 1.05
distance from centre of mass to stabiliser: 1.05 → 0.175 m
wing area multiplier: 1.65 → 3.5
max fin AoA: 9° / 13.5° → 22.5°
guidance duration: 200 → 700 sec
zoom: 6.15x / 14.74x → 6.71x / 24.56x
guidance: TV → IR
added GNSS
target baseline lock range: 12 → 20 km
gimbal limit: 45° → 80°
guidance start delay: 0.75 → 1.5 sec
100% pull is now available at 2.51 sec onwards
max G-load: 2.5 → 4
PID values adjusted
loft removed
new guidance line: 10 m designation error
2000 lbs SPICE 2000:
missile → bomb
booster removed
mass: 893.6 → 970 kg
length: 3.848 → 3.9 m
drag coefficient multiplier: 1.75 → 1.2
distance from centre of mass to stabiliser: 1.3 → 0.3 m
wing area multiplier: 1.65 → 2.15
max fin AoA: 9° / 13.5° → 22.5°
guidance duration: 200 → 300 sec
zoom: 6.15x / 14.74x → 6.71x / 24.56x
guidance: TV → IR
added GNSS
target baseline lock range: 12 → 20 km
gimbal limit: 45° → 80°
guidance start delay: 0.75 → 1.5 sec
100% pull is now available at 2.51 sec onwards
max G-load: 2.5 → 4
PID values adjusted
lofting removed
new guidance line: 10 m designation error
250 lbs SPICE 250:
missile → bomb,
booster removed,
calibre: 360 → 190 mm,
drag coefficient multiplier: 1.75 → 1.35,
distance from centre of mass to stabiliser: 0.05 → 0.075 m,
wing area multiplier: 1.65 → 3.25,
max fin AoA: 9° / 13.5° → 24.75°,
guidance duration: 200 → 600 sec,
zoom: 6.15x / 14.74x → 6.71x / 24.56x,
explosive mass: 75 → 20.8 kg,
guidance: TV → IR,
added GNSS,
target baseline lock range: 12 → 20 km,
gimbal limit: 45° → 80°,
guidance start delay: 0.75 → 1.5 sec,
100% pull is now available at 2.51 sec onwards,
max G-load: 2.5 → 4,
PID values adjusted,
loft:
elevation: 7° → 5°,
target elevation: -20° → -65°,
angle to acceleration multiplier: 10 → 0.35,
max target omega: 0.35 → 1.25,
new guidance line: 10 m designation error
1 Like
SPICE 250 is juicy
I wonder why they didnt add SPICE to F-15I and Baz’s?? Also SPICE 250 not added to aircraft too??
2 Likes
yea but this does not mean it will be added they just changed it for now only the 1000 and 2000 are coming.
i actually dont know because both jets use them its kinda rare i cannot find a reason to not add them maybe @Smin1080p_WT could answer that.
2 Likes
They were never going to be IIR. That would have been kinda insane to try and balance.
But we’ll have to see how flareable they are.
The F-15i not getting SPICE is an odd choice
6 Likes
On both dev servers they werent hard to flare, which is sad but i hope they have fixed that already or are going too
Why don’t the F-16C, A-10C, or F-15E, get LJDAMs or LJDAM-ERs? They are abled to carry them irl.
5 Likes
yeah. I think a IRCCM+ is healthier than IIR at the moment, but should be a notable step up over IRCCM.
But the biggest issue is the total lack of IR modeling in game
So. If im reading this right. They added GMTI for both ground and naval to the Typhoon, Sea Harrier FA2 and Gripens and now they ahve removed naval mode from the Typhoons and removed all GMTI/Naval modes from the FA2 and Gripens.
Another giant waste of time
4 Likes
I just really hope they make the 9X, IRIS-T and (i forgot the other new IR missiles name, if it was even IR) atleast harder to flare than the current IRCCM missiles. I was disappointed how easy it actually was to flare them in their respectable IR range. It was by no means just 1 single flare drop and poof obviously, but still disappointing
Python 5.
Yeah, that is what is needed.
Many people (including those in this very thread) were asking for them for some time. So they are very far from pointless.
2 Likes
I pray they improve the rejection a bit
Not in this update as far as im aware.
Very unfortunate. Thanks for the response, and sorry for the ping
The hope was equipping them alongside AAMs. At hte moment, based on the datamines, you cannot.
This is 100% wrong for the FGA9. So I shall report tomorrow once it has hit live and hopefully I can orphan the F6 into that as well. But the ONLY reason for those 2 airframes to be at their current BRs is the missile. If those arent taken because of fuel tanks. Then Im essentially using a 9.0 aircraft at 9.7 for no apparent reason.