Apple to oranges. I’m comparing the lag in electronics of the USSR to the west. X(west) may copy Y(west) components which are used in western stuff. But Z(soviet) copies from X or Y to use in soviet stuff. This shows the lag the USSR had to the west. X shows the lag to Y, nothing else.
Btw its not a valid tactic. Patents are a thing for a reason.
Of course not, but we were talking about engines. Prior to the british sending their engine, the Soviets were not able to come up with anything as good themselves.
Imo It would be wise to wait and see If we can get more info about the western radars, Just because the russians have these problems doesn’t mean that the West do but it’s not Impossible
Well it is a fact that the Soviets reverse engineered the Nene and that their version did indeed perform better than the original (much to the surprise of Britain and the anger of America).
Also, we are talking about the old variantes right? It’s likely that when the su and the Eagle come to the game we’ll get late 90s variants because of fox3 missiles, like the su27sm, i’m a bit ignorant so idk How It differs from the old flankers.
Western aviation tech was always highly regarded by Soviet pilots and designers. I don’t get the point you and the other guy are trying to prove
N001VEP SUP-VEP «Mech» radar + L-150 RWR
I mean, we already know western radars or radar guided weapons are underperforming in many cases, the info is pretty readily available, even if in many cases the finer details arent outlined in the publicly available information.
Things like modelling the AIM-54C seeker to be an exact copy paste to the AIM-54A’s in WT, despite knowing the AIM-54C’s seeker being a new digital seeker instead of an analogue one like on the 54A, sources describing NCTR, sources detailing the upgrade to the seeker improved its ability, particularly in tracking sea skimming AShM’s in close proximity to other AShM’s are blatant situations were a comprehensive upgrade of a western radar guided weapon irl was modelled as a side grade/downgrade in WT due to whatever arbitrary reasoning gaijin picked.
I assume advanced radar features such as NCTR will also be omitted from western radars for a while, and I’m almost certain its already being omitted from the F-16C. This is another feature that would be incredibly simple to implement (literally just make it so that radars with NCTR can ID the aircraft they have locked at range using the spotting mechanic) and would help bridge the gap in the current R-27ER BVR dominance, but isnt being implemented for “reasons”.
The idea that we should wait to find info definitely proving that western tech did not have an issue that documents prove eastern tech had prior to implementing the issue on said eastern tech is a little silly, particularly when considering that if western radar systems never had the issue with rendering their own RWR unusable while using the radar, then there’s no reason western documents would ever mention that issue in reference to western tech, making it impossible to find since it doesn’t exist.
Gaijin SHOULD NOT be modelling the tech of one nation based on their own inferences from the capabilities of another nation in a certain time frame if there are primary or secondary documents from the nation in question regarding the capabilities of a piece of equipment.
This has happened before as well, and has had a massive effect on certain vehicles. The stinger and mistral were originally nerfed because a russian manpad of the same time period only pulled 10g and therefore gaijin assumed (against all western sources stating otherwise) that the stinger and mistral “MUST” also only pull 10g’s since the russian missile only pulled 10g’s. To this day, this is a significant nerf to western vehicles which rely on the stinger an mistral, particularly when its their ONLY source of air defense, such as the case of the Tiger UHT, which does not have a chin gun and therefore has to rely entirely on a 10g missile for defense against fixed wing aircrafts, making it incredibly easy to grief as it effectively cannot defend itself simply due to gaijin making a baseless assumption. To this day they refuse to fix the stinger with their reasoning being shown below:
Which effectively means that, though they admit the stinger can pull a max of 20-22g’s as stated in the multiple documents, they “believe” it to be “fundamentally impossible” for the stinger to pull 20-22g’s on average, and therefore wont raise its max g-load in-game…
I have no clue where they pulled the 10g for igla. They definitely confused it with the strela manpads. Igla had scored multiple hits on agile targets
It’s due to the “working principle” of Rolling Airframe Guidance being common between them all, funnily enough I don’t see this also impacting the performance Vikhr which also uses the similar mechanization.
I don’t know much about aerodynamics. Is there a good place to look this up?
Even the Igla is only 16g’s according to this document (SA-16):
So they nerfed all MANPADS to 10g because the Strela (SA-7b above) is 10g, despite sources stating the stinger, mistral, and igla all pulling more than the strela…
From one study guide, that are wrong very often. Meanwhile Grom based on Igla seems to have 18G.
I assume igla-s has more g pull (?)
Not particularly but basically the point is that since;
Sin(x) = cos(90-x)
The resultant angle between the computed autopilot correction and orientation of the control surface group(s) does not impact performance with a standard set of four independent airfoils, you could get away with as few as three but the surfaces would need to be more complicated and interdependent. with two it would depend on how fast it was rotating. and further depending on the choice of actuators being either bang-bang or proportional will impact the efficiency of guidance though not to the point where it could not complete an intercept, and that way well be worth the cost / weight savings if they needed to be produced at sufficient scale to be able to be put behind every bush and tree in the AO.
from the same document as those launch tables
and if you wanted to read more there is also
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305674301_Flight_control_system_for_guided_rolling-airframe_missile
Someone already did I thought. Either way, I don’t have the references or sources used and I’m not home this week so probably not. I’d be interested in finding out if it’s a more common issue among other nations aircraft too though.
Also, we let the usual suspects talk for too long and behold… They derailed the thread again. Let’s keep it on the MiG-29. Y’all can create a manpads thread or something if you want to go into detail on the rolling airframes.
Someone has don’t worry.
I’m sure the moderators are capable of policing the forums themselves if they feel the thread has gone too far off-topic. The odd tangential discussion can be productive…
There are select few moderators, they only need a nudge to know when rule breaking is happening. Unfortunately for us, most of the time it’s intentional. If you think the conversation is productive it’s all too easy to make a thread with just a title and the aim to discuss… It doesn’t need a long OP with the history.
I’m not going to make a new thread for y’all tho.
(Not off topic)
@Giovanex05 @BBCRF
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Sfm5AWKu1dEJ
Gaijin has denied the sustained turn rate report for the MiG-29. Do y’all have anything to say about their response?
