What do you mean?
This looks better for dealing with IIR seekers
That is what it is designed to counter, make a IR cloud big enough that there is no way for the missile to see any part of the plane
3 Likes
Oh btw guys as it mightve not been noticed, theres a further Gripen FM nerf.
2 Likes
There should be a few more down the pipeline.
2 Likes
Then we can start buffing other areas of the Gripen that have been artificially nerfed
3 Likes
Do you have sources for you claim btw? As it stands rn the A should perform better than the C but iirc the game stats that they are the exact same in flight performance despite them weighing different amounts.
Are you discussing the FM? I’m only discussing the FM. Other areas can also be reported and fixed simultaneously and are handled by other devs.
yesn’t the typical 118 pattern countermeasure uses a denser packing of chaff compared to bol (the roll of fibre is about just over a inch in diameter, bol uses a less compressed folded box section instead of rolled tube), a single 118 has nominal weight of about 137g going by the Chemring Countermesures datasheet, a single bol flatpack is only 45g (again going by CCM’s datasheet). The advantage of bol is packing density, there’s no pyro, nor do you need room for the firing mechanisms behind every countermeasure, + the shipping is a less of a PITA
Gaijin model standard chaff in game after the PPR-26 chaff cartridge which weighs 55 g compared to BOL’s 45 g. So by the time you account for the difference in construction (metal Vs plastic) the amount of chaff in a BOL packet is likely about the same as is in a PPR-26 cartridge.
That difference in mass in no way justifies BOL having a 75% decrease in radar signature, as it currently does in game.
5 Likes
Used to work at chemring lmao, that experience was what I was basing my comments on. You do not want to know how many times I rewrote my original comment to not even give a hint of breaking NDA lmao
6 Likes
Does that make you the official Britain chaff expert on the forums :P
1 Like
That’s cool.
But as I said Gaijin explicitly model standard size chaff in game as representative of a PPR-26 cartridge, which apparently contains 40 g of chaff. That is significantly smaller than something like a 118, RR-170, or M839 but it’s what they have decided to use as their baseline. I don’t know the chaff content of a BOL packet but hopefully we can agree that while it is likely a bit less than 40 g, it is unlikely to constitute a 75% decrease in radar signature relative to the PPR-26?
You could probably make a decent case that the RR-170 etc. should be modelled as a new “medium chaff” with a radar signature between that of the current standard and large chaff. But that’s not really relevant to the comparison of BOL and PPR-26.
1 Like
Chaff already HEAVILY overperforms
Learn how to use missiles properly : )
Spoiler
/j
Cool. But that’s still not a reason for BOL to be artificially worse than other chaff in the meantime.
Also is the problem with chaff itself? Or is it with radars not having their proper chaff rejection systems modeled?
3 Likes
The problem is with chaff itself iirc
Sorry. My fault. I assumed that in the game there are cars with countermeasures of different sizes, but they are calculated mixed up, like normal ones.
There are different sizes, you can see it in the plane description.
1 Like