I see, thanks. For me at least, I’m neither for nor against it since it’s not confirmed.
Does Gaijin’s reasoning hold up though? I assume that since it’s passive, then it would defeat the purpose of stealth? Or is it something where you only turn it on when you get spotted or expect to get spotted?
If it does hold up, what does that say about the Su-57 or other Stealth aircraft (if there is any) that uses some sort of missile jammer?
it isnt
the F-16 is limited to 28° of AOA and you can see that in the graph you sent
means the FCS will not let the F-16 pull more than that because it will depart and dosent only has the chance for that
that is due to the instructor keeping the plane stable good luck trying to do that in full real
and the same applies to the F-15 btw
ontop of that Flankers have demonstrated IRL that they are able to pull high ammounts of AoA without departing
Not really since it’s an optional system and so could be mounted as needed
It’s not a reactive system, but a proactive defensive system as it is always emitting in the defended sector(s) while active. unlike DIRCM, which activates in response to a detected threat, and provides the same jamming signal.
It is tied into the existing suite of defensive systems, so could automatically become active in response to a spike from a known / potential IR threat in a covert manor (as the ALR-39A RWR has classification capabilities built into the system). and the delayed onset of the system becoming effective could be significantly sped up if it was updated to include the later -144A upgrade that swapped out the Carbon source for a vapor arc lamp.
It’s really up to the Crew / mission planning as to how they have it set up and what the expected threat is comprised of, it’s not like many ground based IRST systems existed in the early 90’s to the actual increase to the IR signature doesn’t amount to much if not yet detected, and once you are it’s better to be protected than not. Also since it for example it (doctrinally) precluded the carriage of Flares in the M-130 dispenser for the AH-1F / AH-64A it was seen to be perfectly serviceable against novel IR threats at the time.
True AoA limit of the F-16 is about 35~38 degrees or so for deep stalls IIRC, the 28 figure implemented includes a fair margin of safety since it can’t take everything into account and has to continue to function in the case of lost sensors or spurious / transient input, and it’s not a continues system but interpolates many times a second.
The issue with the in game system is that such a system doesn’t play nice with the currently implemented instructor since it would create feedback loops causing significant issues with controllability within certain input regimes.
Also it wouldn’t really be fair to not also include the arbitrary 1.5x increase in available load factor that all other aircraft receive, which is what is modeled. Since other airframes would otherwise be able to fly their wings off, and it’s not like the edge in sustained performance that a FBW system would provide can’t be exploited;
By simply dumping excess energy that is effectively unusable for the F-16 since it can’t tighten the turn harder and so would perform drastically worse due to said cap forcing the turning circle much wider and being unable to dump excess energy to tighten down the turn by cashing in on the instant performance to then make gains at optimal corner speeds.
Do you even know what paper means?
(we still have the placeholder how is this fixed?)
It is
Sustained
Nope, both irl and in game you can cause the FCS to allow more AOA by applying rapid inputs, which can allow AOA far above 28 degrees, the aircraft will depart at 45 degrees AOA but as you highlight with the SU-33, the instructor manages such issues far better than any human or FCS can.
It is quite easy to do so, I have in sim
Categorically false as the F-15 lacks the pointing ability to actually hover at 0 speed like the SU-33 and such can.
Lol no, they have not, flankers cannot preform VTOL maneuvers, they cannot stop in place, hover and land on their engines like they can in game because airfoils dont work with no airflow, yet, the SU-33 and other sukhois in game somehow produce attitude control with 0 airflow across their control surfaces.
gunner controls the helicopter >:(
Conceptually, yes, it is difficult to develop a stealth helicopter. The only one that has come close to this is the Comanche, which has radio, IR, acoustic and optical visibility many times less than the same Kiowa, not to mention the Apache. Radio visibility may not be so significantly reduced, but this is not so important, it was reduced, and reduced significantly.
The main parameter that was reduced was IR visibility. And this was a huge leap from Apache and Kiowa. No one has been able to repeat this yet, because the technology of such air mixing as on Comanche requires initial design. Also, even the tail boom of this helicopter makes you think about current helicopters. A massive structure that can accommodate many systems. And this is clearly better than expanding EFAB on Apache once again.
People who think the Comanche is a bad helicopter are weird. It’s not bad. It’s great. It failed for one reason. It tried to replace a scout helicopter that doesn’t need replacing and should just be allowed to die.
And the Comanche is the only helicopter that was developed after the late 90s that could and should have been accepted into service. After its cancellation, the US launched two programs to replace the Kiowa, both were canceled. Funny.
Commanche had dual flight controls IIRC, so front or back could fly
Oooooo, my only problem I have is simply the place holder cockpit
Yeah placeholders suck. Whats even worse is they promised to fix most of them ages ago (looking at bombers) yet most still have just thrown together ones
F-1’s cockpit is still “accepted” since 3+ years ago, one of the GM’s mentioned to me that they only do it on “Major updates”, 2 major updates later still lacking
Adding this here since I find it interesting.
Dunno why but Stona has been canning functionally every single post I’ve seen regardless of the location asking what happened to the RAH-66’s armor.
Very curious.
Am working on an additional report to get the armor re-added, if folks have some photos beyond what was posted int he dev server forums on the subject of it’s armor that would be fantastic! Should not have been an issue in the first place but this is par for the course now.
Maybe it made it too resistant to missile shrapnel from proxy detonations or something like that and they just dont want it to be that way so they are ignoring it and pretending its not an issue. They do that all the time with historical/realism issues if fixing them changes gameplay in a way they dont like
unless its russian equipment then 500 billion buffs
I am aware, I’m more interested in Stona shutting down any discussion on the subject.
Its one thing to say that they think its unbalanced, its another to just can every single thread asking why the removal occurred.
Russian mains complained too much about it being the best helicopter in game / gaijin told moderators to squash any outcry is my guess. I’ve had 2 topics about the removal of armor closed by Stona and I’m still disgusted with how they did pre-sale guys dirty.
This helicopter needs work. Sometimes it just falls out of the sky, it needs a toggle AOA limit switch or it just sheers the engine, the armor needs to get thrown back in and the chaingun needs less overheat
