It’s just natural at this point. After all, they added AAM-3 without BTT and dual channel seeker so, it’s just to be expected for balance.
But yes, if it helps add the F-2 earlier, I’m all for it.
1 Like
Small correction, PESA radars can do two things at a time such as you mentioned simultaneous terrain following/avoidance and air to air functions.
From Rafale’s PESA:
Spoiler
no.
this is a technicality thing. PESA has one Tx and/or RX module thus it can only do one thing at a time. HOWEVER, the speed at which it can switch between a2a/a2g is much much higher which is what that picture you posted states.
“fast radar mode switches”
it’s not technically simulatneously but functionally simultaneously.
AESA on the other hand can have different sections of the radar produce their own radar waves so you can actually have the top half do air to air and the bottom half air to ground for example. this is what’s required for “true” simultaneous operations.
PESAs can just be made fast enough so that there’s no significant negative impact on performance.
4 Likes
I sometimes wonder if more hybrid designs were ever suggested, such as the use of a dual pulse rocket with a ramjet as a sustainer. This could be rather interesting.
Finally found the topic i was looking for,
I was wondering why give usa and russia missiles 100% to 80% max theoric range and french or other nations barely 15/20%. It has gone on bug report since august i think, micas explode themselfs at 40km, when theoric tange should be 60 to 80km for exemple.
Can you cite a single example in-game where this is true?
2 Likes
Likely because the MICA would be busted OP if it was both the best short range missile ingame by a country mile and ALSO the best long range missile ingame?
Gaijin doesnt like to admit to nerfing stuff for balance, but they do do it, and regardless of what french mains pretend, a MICA that crushes everything in WVR while also matching the AIM-120 in BVR would be broken OP. Its unlikely the MICA gets fixed until stuff like AIM-120C5 and R-77-1 are added.
Not like the MICA is the only nerfed missile either, the AIM-120 is still missing range iirc, and its had its maneuvrability nerfed substantially, to the point of being the worst fox 3 in close range by a substantial margin (barring the AIM-54), but that doesnt fit ppl’s narrative so they dont mwntion it much.
I would say this is hyperbole in some way. MICA was demonstrated to be missing some range in a report, but I would not say it is only 15-20% of the range that it should be. It seems like correcting some of the TVC mechanic might have allowed the MICA to get a bit of its range back since this last patch.
Ignoring Russia, atleast from the British documents, it does seem like it doesn’t lack any range.
According to developers, the R-77-1 does not add much range compared to the R-77 in-game, so maybe not even then. It may be probable that R-77-1 arrives before AIM-120C-5 if this is the case.
In my opinion it could arrive with Su-30SM in March or June this year.
I think this very much would be the case in order to provide Russia with a proper 14.0 aircraft, or perhaps 14.3 if it gets moved up along with Eurofighter/Rafale and possibly F-15E.
1 Like
Micas EM theoric range and tested range are 60 to 80km… aim 120 have max theoric range, r77n and fakours too or near 80%, same numbers you can read online.
The missile can loose momentum and max g further away or, they can give a long range option, another mica. In sim fighting against usa is a pain as we dont have anny long range engagement missiles.
Supposing the 60 to 80km tests where done with hight altitude in a straight line, the actual ingame stats of the micas are max 25km, to 30km verry hight alt. Lets say 20%? I see no point giving range advantage to one nation. 80km and not 120 // 25km not 60to80… you see the gap? And i saw a video where the micas explode itself after 40km of course??
That’s not true for either
MICAs meet time to target and range data for a few known scenarios, there exists little information to accurately model them at this time. The issue that is plaguing it seems to be a bug that needs fixed.
That’s stretching - if you want the point to be valid stop exaggerating.
2 Likes
1.Aero Project - Missiles - Air-Air - Mica EM/IR - Fiche Technique
2. MBDA MICA EM/ IR [in french]
3. MBDA MICA | Weaponsystems.net
4. Matra MICA
Its all bullshit but you have the truth, non exagerating truth.
Like seriously 50 to 80km its effective range, its not stretching its what every single french weapon website say or i would really want to know how war thunder made their calculation. There is no information on the testing nor the technical document of it, but there is no more accurate infos on other missiles. We still are in the approximative war thunder adaptation. So either they stick to the known data or they invent us a fox 3 that have fox 3 range, no reason to nerf everything but usa and russia.
I read everywhere that r77 have 80km range like ingame, aim120 depend the version 70 to 180, its matching.
This is a lie, you are still lying. You are saying that other missiles reach their intended range and that is not true. It is not true for the AIM-120, the R-77, or the MICA. The MICA is the most handicapped currently because of a bug that causes it to explode prematurely. Still, in-game it has a maximum range closer to 50km and the effective range of all missiles varies depending on conditions. The realistic launch range for a high percentage kill rate is essentially the same between MICA and AIM-120… in fact, the MICA is better off at those ranges closer than 40km than the other missiles.
You’ve thrown any credibility your argument had out the window by exaggerating the issue and subsequently lying about the in-game performance. Every source you listed was useless.
1 Like
Try to hit a bot at 40km and record it, 50km would be a blessing. Why useless? There is no technical document so why not base the ingame missiles on those infos?
Missile travels over 50km before exploding;
Anything else you need?
3 Likes
thats not you, 11k alt and you know there is a bug that make them explode urly now. Thats a lie, see?
Correct, it is a video that @DirectSupport made for his bug report on that very issue. Where is the lie?
Here is the report; Community Bug Reporting System
Since the report has been made, why are you complaining? Do you think they have not been fair in modeling this missile somehow as compared to the peers?
Let’s look at the R-77 who has considerably worse time to target than it should simply because the missile has been tailored towards a 0.9 mach launch engagement. This hampers the missile considerably as they are modeling it as though it has planar style fins instead of grid fins. In short, the missile is modeled as having considerably more drag than it really should for any launches that take place beyond 1.3 mach since it would not be experiencing that wave drag during acceleration.
Beyond this, the missile is hampered because it is modeled as having excessive AoA of the fins to match the maneuvering performance provided by the grid fins… but does not have the reduced maneuvering drag the grid fins would supply.
Let’s look at the R-27 next shall we? It is missing 100 m/s top speed and up to 25% of the maximum range in high altitude scenarios.
What exactly is your point?