It was transitioned to due to the increasing prevalence of effective defensive electronic jamming since it was relatively simple to jam (though it is resistant to most of the basic types e.g. Noise, Barrage, and pulsed) due to the cyclical nature of the scan, long dwell time of the seeker and relatively large sidelobes.
and in comparison to the alternate Rosette scan method it would likely have been significantly cheaper and has a reduced moving part count and requirements on processing for interpreting returns would have made it simpler to implement at the time(all Rosette scan does is add a second cyclic rotation which frustrates existing conical scan jamming signals).
There isn’t really a massive technical difference between conical scan and either monopulse methods; in being that instead of nutating the FoV of the seeker and taking the average strength of the signal over time(e.g. a rotation of the seeker) as the pointing error,
Monopulse methods compare the returns of multiple receivers that have overlapping gain patterns and simultaneously compares the strengths on their axial partners to determine error on a given axis, which is combined to derive pointing error.
With the AIM-7E at least the problem wasn’t said to be the seeker but the active radar proximity fuse getting ground interference below 5000ft (~1.5km), in a look down scenario, even though as noted it was cleared to attack surface targets, which are obviously near 0m AGL so its not really a seeker issue as such, though it is a contributing factor.
During the fox 3 test in march multipathing was overperforming. Regarding fox1s, well it probably depends on the exact model, but i’d say there are very roughly performing as they should, + or - some small difference here and there
Oh how frustrating - i know i was getting annoyed and i’ve only spent a couple days on it lol. What specifications are still needed? Or do you just need a second source stating similar characteristics on detection capably as in your khinzal report. Since, like your reasoning within khod report, the view limit information is not needed for warthunder as currently they are based on the integrated Shkval optical system - but if they wanted to they could just model the limits of mercury pods since they share a near identical container.
i mean im hopeful(not expecting but still), since this is basically the first time where every nation will be on roughly equal footing radar missile wise. So all will suffer and benifit more or less equally with a more realistic implementation of multipathing.
I doubt itll happen personally. MP is a feature because if it wasnt, bad players would cry, a LOT. Gaijin cant keep selling their overpriced copy paste premium jets if the bad players aren’t having fun, so we get to continue to have baby mode applied at top tier.
It’ll also be interesting to see if the fox 3’s are fixed when they’re added, since some of them were significantly underperforming iirc (like the AMRAAM and MICA iirc)
yeah, there certainly would be a ton of outrage - im not expecting it either. Still, it is definitely possible, and imo should happen at some point in time. Its extremely stupid that we can basically ignore a whole class of weapons whose usage make up probably over 95% of all modern aerial combat. The wt playerbase are certainly babies, but they can learn and adapt when change is forced upon them - they will do it kicking and screaming the whole way, but they do eventually adapt. Same as the first IR missiles, and the first radar ones, then 30g stuff and all aspects - and now most recently with IRCCM missiles. They can learn to use proper kinematic and notching defenses just the same.
If they want to do it, this update would be the ideal moment. All Fox3s coming are more or less comparable, not sure it will stay like that for long, so now would be the correct moment for Gaijin to pass the change and for people to learn how to notch
Notching isn’t particularly good radar missile defense, particularly in the case of fox 3’s and MPRF seekers. Positional combat, going cold, keeping pressure on the opponent, reengaging, altitude changes, etc… that’s what people have to learn. Notching and proper chaff use is a just a portion of radar missile defense.
BVR is supposed to be like a long range dogfight and a game of chess, not “who can suck up the most dirt with their intakes or notch best as a last resort”
yeah - the funny part is its not even a hard thing to learn, i’ve been climbing to alt without chaff ever since F4E. Simply dont fly right at the enemy, or heaven forbid - turn around. Its ezpz, but people really think its the hardest thing in the world. Let the people who really enjoy furballs and diving in to yeet IR missiles everywhere stay around 10-11, just the same as how those who dont like jets or ‘missile thunder’ stay at more enjoyable br’s for them - and finally we can have the game progress.
The missiles that have Inv. Monopulse and Monopulse are fine. It’s the ones that don’t that shouldn’t be doing so well. I’m not sure if that’d include stuff like the AIM-54 or Super 530s, but if it didn’t it’d give people a bit more breathing space against missiles that don’t have Monopulse Seekers
lol no… Top tier air is bouta be cancer. There will quite literally be the possibility for 192 FOX3s to be flying through the air over the duration of a match. (I’m still going to play it of course)
if people vomit out all their fox 3’s early game, literally all you have to do is go cold, wait for the volley to be over, and surprise, you are now the only jet left with BVR weapons.
Granted, I dont really care much about air RB, as I only play sim now. Air RB is a terrible game mode with or without fox 3’s at this point, because the player base that mostly plays RB want AB, but dont wanna admit they want AB, so they settle for air RB (AB+ as some people have called it)
Yeah theres a lot of bad maps in air sim. Theres 4 good ones atm imo.
Spain
Afghanistan
Rocky Canyon (sorta?)
Vietnam
I had made a suggestion for gaijin to rework some old AB maps into full sized EC ones for RB/Sim, but when the new forums happened, they had me rewrite the suggestion, denied it 7 times in a row (despite approving it in the past) and i just gave up
