Eh… I wouldnt mind if it was universal, but there are exceptions. Like the Mig-21BiS uses combat thrust figures for its AB unlike every other jet that ues standard AB figures not combat thrust.
Also not all manuals are made equal to the same margins. I wouldnt be surprised if Britain’s slightly lack luster performance on a number of aircraft was entirely the MoDs fault and that they werent quite so bad IRL. (Though I also blame Gaijin modeling equally for that too)
I’d assume US/UK manuals would be to similar standards given the very close defense ties throughout the cold war. But the MiG is definitely interesting. Don’t think it causes any issues but it should be brought in line unless they bump up other jets to combat rating
Maybe. But every chance the MoD were being perdantic as usual
There is another directly claim of super high AOA lol.
Yes I think after his enquiry NASA and RAE got together and did a lot of testing.
From my research the L21A1 had a mass procurement contract inked and fulfilled by Rheinmetall, but any press coverage of it disappears after 2007. You would have to ask British servicemen about it.
Interesting, could just be a classified munition.
Could you provide sources for all of your claims please? Thanks
He’s been banned for a week for accidentally posting a classified doc, so I’ll try to answer on his behalf.
IR stuff (point 5) you can read my breakdown here:
But also from a purely in-game perspective. How Gaijin models heat signatures screws the Harriers as its all based on thrust and the Harrier has a lot of thrust, and gains more thrust at lower airspeeds. At a bare minimum. It should be given an IR signature equal to that of any other sub-sonic aircraft in game, like the Buc or Hunter. (achievable using the F-117s code) Instead its hotter than many Afterburning engines. and at an airspeed of about 420kts, its the hottest aircraft in game (impossible to flare a long ranged (3km) R-60M)
Sooty exhaust (point 3) is actually my bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nL08Lex7fUDv
(OP did give me another primary source for it too, but was told by Gunjob that what I had so far was more than enough and so wasnt added to the report)
The other 3 points I dont have primary sources on hand, but its incredibly hard to report because the sources often used drop tanks and no canons. A config not possible in game. So its hard to do a direct comparison to the sources in game. But it is more than likely the performance is wrong.
he has a number of reports in but none have been passed yet (but is/was working quite closely with gunjob, so I have no idea what may or may not have been passed internally) :
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PKQ9EkFkhaoz
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0Og5A3B8DcWb
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0pjyC4bjkc9h
and he has other threads for covering parts of it like:
But overall its a tricky aircraft for them to model withwise to the VIFF and proabbly will never be right, but there are some relatively basic things like VIFF should bunt the nose up quite hard. But in game it does almost nothing. On a basic level. Harrier 1s should probably turn like the Harrier 2s do and the Harrier 2s should turn better still. Or failing that, the VIFF should have a far greater impact than it currently does.
But even just normalising the heat sigs and removing the sooty exhaust, as well as things like properly modeling the SHar HUD and fixing BOL. Would be more than enough of a buff short term for the Harriers.
He seems to misrepresent the numbers in these two reports, if you cross reference the numbers he states with the numbers he shows, the harrier is actually overperforming
I shall leave him to respond in a weeks time, because im not well versed in the source material. But there are certainly aspects of the Harriers FM that doesnt feel right.
Like if you ever read accounts from people like Sharkey Ward, it seems to drain far less energy or recover it much quicker IRL, than it does in game.
Thrust curve is most likely incorrect but theres not much that can be done in that aspect
and the heat signature is a limitation with how heat signature is measured as its directly linked to thrust
There is a reasonable chance that the max thrust of the peagus engine is too low, but its a fiddly engine to reprot.
There wasnt until they added the F-117 (and I think the Commanche uses the same). They “modeled” its IR reduction kit by applying a 0.5x multiplier to its “temp”. There is no reason why the same couldnt be done for the Harrier and anything else a little too hot (or maybe even inverted and used to make cold things like the F-5 hotter) as a short term bodge job.
The fact they added the 0.5x multipliers means they can add other such multipliers such as an exponential function in order to more accurately portray the harries engine temps. It should actually be all that hard, i would give it a try but i dont have any of the relative stats for the harrier nor the code gaijin use but i know someone here probably has all the information required to give it a go.
Suffice to say, its not like they dont have the ability, and them being “limited” by a flat constant isnt much of an excuse.
Yup. Precisely. I dont have the technical expertise either, but fingers crossed Gunjob or another tech mod has passed the idea along. Certainly been mentioned enough.
But all we can do is to keep mentioning it until something is actually done. I’ve also been drawing a lot of attention towards an eventual IR signature overhaul. I think many have realised that the current system is hopelessly inadequate for the current class of IR missile. Let alone what must come next. We have seen some development in that regard, with helis getting directional exhausts. It wouldnt be the first time a mechanic came to helis before it came to fixed wing.
Just imagine an ir sig rework… having an actual difference in heat sig with and without re heat. Could actually give the sraam and red tops some relevance again (god, the things they have done tot hose missiles is a travesty). Especially with iir missiles coming, i dont think it would be possible to balance them without such measures.
Yeah. Also most all-aspect missiles (Or at the very least 9Ls) would not be defeatable whilst the target was just sat on reheat. thought would have to be put into how to defend (which helps the playbase a lot with the current jump to defending against IRCCM as it creates a more staggered progression of difficulty)
Also would finally reign in the F-5s. Their current IR signature is a joke. An Afterburning F-5 is colder than an F-117 :D
Would also make defensive AAMs found on strike platforms vaguely useful if it took some thought to defeat them instead of dropping one flare and then continuing to be a pest to the strike platform. At present, they are more a hindrance than a help, often doesn’t even function to scare off the threat, but increases BR.
9M/9L found on strike platforms do not hold remotely enough threat to be worth it half the time.
Yeah, it really would. At the moment, Id rather have a Tornado without any AAMs than the 9L, because the defence it is suppose to provide is a fraction of what it actually does. 9Ms on the GR4 are just about good enough to keep the GR4 from being DOA at its BR, but how I imagine 9Ls should be, is practically what the 9M is in-game currently and the 9M should be stronger still.
to keep the thread ontopic as well. The FRS1 would be in a much healthier place with full strength 9Ls. I get why they need to be at a higher BR with all-aspects due to flareless things below, but even the slightest uptier and they hardly feel worth it
They feel like slightly more consistent R60s, which is a pretty sad state. I would play sea harrier if the AAMs felt remotely useful.
Yeah. In ARB, you have to learn what does and does not have flares. If they have flares, just stick with guns.
In SB they are of more value because you can be sneaky and they may not see them coming, but quite often, a 9G would have worked just as well.