So? 530F is proven to have Chaff filtering. That means it should be harder to chaff
Right now, it takes 1 chaff and its done for. It should take maneuvering and chaff to make it redirect itself. If that gets fixed, F1C is right at home. I never said it was immune, just that it should be more difficult
wait until mate finds out that it still applies because changing variables doesn’t change the logic and the aim-9x is considered flare resistant where the radar missile is considered chaff resistant yet both of them can fall to countermeasures and you pretending like that can’t happen is foolish.
if it falls for chaff it falls for chaff simple as that, the second or third burst of chaff in airplanes isn’t any different to the first one and they contain dipoles of same frequencies.
That uh, that ain’t how chaff filtering works, mate. (Simplified, but I’d need to write a short paper to explain the defeat mechanisms more accurately) Chaff tends to slow down at a different rate to the target. One might even say it ends up become static to the seeker head on account of air resistance. You want to know a method for filtering targets? Rate of closure, which can be used to ascertain speed. If the thing is closing the same speed your missile is traveling, the thing ain’t a plane in most circumstances. This obviously (shouldn’t need to say it, it is self explanatory) can be defeated by holding a direction/maneuver that will keep thrown chaff in the seeker view until the aircraft is outside of the FOV, at which point chaff has functioned to defeat it.
either it has the capability to filter out the dipoles or it does not, the dipoles are the same frequencies as in the earlier dropped chaff. therefore if 50 drops of chaff confuse the missile there is no reason one drop of chaff won’t do it. same dipoles. youre only resistant in chaff against chaff that is made for wrong frequencies.
Mate’s so close to working out how IR emissions work and he’s applying it to chaff defeat mechanisms instead of IR defeat mechanisms.
I beg to differ. IRCCM missiles are crazy strong. 9Ms are only found on the A-10 at 11.7 of which the Mirage F1C is not comparable to
both are looking for spectrums of radiation. understand how broad the x band is and how you can differ the lenghts of dipoles against specific frequencies. just because it is chaff resistant against french made chaff does not make it resistant to russian chaff due to different dipoles being used. the americans found this out when their sidewinder seekers were declared flare resistant but when the russian flares were shitty so they had bunch of different frequencies compared to the american ones the sidewinder missed. they had stolen a countermeasure pod from an aircraft to find this out.
there is no proof that the “chaff resistance” exists against anything but nato chaff. the documents literally did not use russian made chaff or chinese made chaff.
understand this: there is no proof that the chaff resistance exists outside of what they tested it against, so it is non sense to give it chaff resistance against such planes.
so yes the paper is insufficient to hold for your claims.
the french can go make a new paper where they are using stolen russian countermeasures from the ukraine war if they want to declare chaff resistance against them. otherwise its just marketing words that dont apply to reality.
Please go back up, and read the brief and simplified explanation of the mechanism behind how chaff is filtered. There is a reason chaff has become a part of a broad ECM suite, and not the only tool for defeating radars and missiles.
and we dont have anything else than chaff so dont try to bring those up
google how the countermeasures look like and understand how the dipole length affects what is reflected and what is not reflected. understand that russians have dipoles different from nato. therefore “we were resistant against our own chaff” does not mean you are resistant against the chaff of other countries. yes, chaff differs and it is not just chaff where you can somehow magically filter all of it out because otherwise you would not see the enemy plane because you are also filtering your own radar signals out.
You really said this in the same message you pulled this:
You know you can just look up the ECM functions of Tornadoes, right? That demonstrate that chaff is used in conjuction with a broader suite of tools to enhance survivability and the likelihood of defeating radar bound threats.
doesn’t exist in f1c or russian aircraft, irrelevant. dont bring things up that dont exist in relevant aircraft.
https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/0895adb7-d2ca-4931-9ac0-847db0b895bc/content
take a read to understand how your argument falls apart and how chaff resistance doesn’t exist the way you think it does
come back after you have read the paper and then comment.
The physics behind one of many chaff defeat mechanisms don’t change just because of the time of implementation. Pointing to ECM suites is to get you to understand that chaff defeat mechanisms (such as the one found on the Matra 530F) lead to the need to develop tools to enhance the efficacy of chaff and radar defeat mechanisms in general.
If this weren’t the case, Tornado would not have an ECM suite.
it is irrelevant whether the tornado has an ecm suite or not, because the ability of your missile to ignore chaff of another countries does not change based on whether a tornado in some another country has an ecm suite or not.
did you read the paper? do you now understand that you are wrong or are you actively arguing against evidence and ignoring it? do you admit that?
and with your logic if global chaff resistance existed there would be no reason to use chaff anymore and only use ecm suites. every single goverment that has defense industries building these jets with chaff would not use it if it did not work.
Someone else educate this individual.
The blight of arguing with the stupid is they’ll drag you to their level and beat you with experience.
so now youre coming in with insults because you refused to read the paper which holds evidence against your claims, you get mad when i use your own logic against you and you have run out of any non sense arguments because i have defeated all of them. try to follow the forum tos please becase not only is your argument wrong, youre also in the wrong when you break the tos
What you are using is not logic. If you were bothering to engage with logic, I would not have had to point to physics being immutable half a dozen times.
You are the perfect embodiment of the tactic of baffling people with ineptitude.
more name calling against tos
The F1C at 12.0 BR is like having a Walkman with only 2 fire mixtape tracks those Magic 2s. These missiles are straight-up bangers with IRCCM and a 50G pull (don’t trust the stat card, it’s lying when it says 35G). Close range? Yeah, that’s 2 free kills right there
But here’s the problem: you only get two of these bad boys. After that? You’re stuck with the R530s, which are like trying to flex with a VHS tape in the age of DVDs. 15G pull and super easy to chaff out. In 12.0 BR, everyone else is bringing Netflix, and you’re still rewinding.
Flight performance? Slightly above average, but nothing to write home about. You can handle yourself, but it’s not enough against the big boys. cough!. mirage2000 f14 and ect… After those Magic 2s are gone, it’s just you and some outdated missiles hoping for the best
Bottom line: The F1C is a two-hit wonder. Those 2 Magic 2s slap hard, but the rest of the loadout? Nah. It really deserves to drop to 11.7 BR or get some BR decompression. Otherwise, you’re playing a full match with half a playlist and hoping no one notices.
you got point but its already their cough! cough!! r73 su25 cough!! cough!! jaguar is with 2 magic2