also that brochure with asterisk was for normal weight not empty weight, normal weight cam easily change depending on which missiles customer want. the brochure for su35s has no asterisk beside the empty weight
1 Like
pilot interview gaijin don’t accept as source. they should accept that brochure though, here’s the interview i was talking about
why ? its pointless to add its weight without ecm in war thunder.
1 Like
If 19t is taking into account the ECM pods then it makes no sense to model weight that isn’t there. But then again, I haven’t seen proof yet that says the pods are included in the final number, so we shall just wait and see what number the devs will chose once it gets added.
1 Like
Guys I just realized the Su-27 we have in game is actually a Su-27S, shouldn’t it be renamed properly?
It should but no way in hell is gaijin going to rename it in any reasonable time frame, if at all
There are lots of vehicles that have a wrong name ingame and gaijin dosent fix it
1 Like
From my understanding and from what BBCRF posted time ago. Su-30sm empty weight was around 19100 kg. Or something like that.
Edit; About the brochure. My bad i should have checked Which one was the one talking about 19000kg. Anyway its still the same case. Normal weight its still 25300. So its still counting Khibiny. Dif its that Su-30sm can use them. But Su-35s come from factory with them.
An these pod are BIG.
Edit2; I’m not against the Su-35s weight being 19000kg but only if that include the Khibiny pods.
2 Likes
Found this page that said that he Khibiny-M Weight 410kg. I guess that its for each pod. KRET spotlights new Khibiny-M EW system at MAKS 2017
1 Like
Also apparently, Khibiny-M allegedly has PD MAWS, like the ones on eurofighter, however i am looking for concrete evidence…
2 Likes
Yo, I said those things just to make the PESA we have in the game feel a bit better, like you want as well. The only thing I meant is that, from my point of view, its really hard to draw any conclusion just from this video since the radar could act totally different in other conditions.
I mean, sure, but theres also no reason not to work with the information that we do now have.
I would hope gaijin doesnt give the Irbis-E a 250°/s scan rate when its on video with a 60°/s scan rate for example. Until proven otherwise, this should be assumed to be the max scan rate for the Irbis-E, since its the only scan rate we actually have any evidence for.
1 Like
lets not get to far ahead of ourselfs
the whole scan rate thing is based on the assumption that the moving dots on the radar screen represent the scaned bars of the scan pattern
it is possible that they stand for something different as well
Even if we give them a heads up, if they wanna mess up, they will, you know how it is… I also wouldnt be surprised if the irbis turned out to be a totally trash radar or better than every aesa, who knows?
Its possible, but its unlikely. Its by far the best assumption we have, in which case we apply Occam’s razor and determine that to be the case unless proven otherwise.
Oh, I’m 99% sure gaijins giving the Irbis-E a 200°/s+ scan rate and that they’re going to make it the best radar in-game by a country mile (might still have bad scan zones tho like the current Bars), and that they’ll shoot down any bug report on the subject using the same argument as @ron_23, but I would hope they dont, cuz its pretty disingenuous.
Its not like the Irbis-E needs a good scan rate to be good in WT anyways with how short ranged engagements are and how good its gimbal limits are vs all competitors, giving it a scan rate much higher than what it likely has would be unnecessary and biased imo.
not as an ESA radar in WT
fair
iam currently trying to figure out how the green and white parts of the MFD page fit together bc it seems odd to me that they dont really line up
the letters on the side 100% have something to do with switching MFD pages and stuff like that
but it is weird to me that the green part dosent line up with the white one at the bottom
because the green part and the white part dont have the same scale is it possible that the search area isnt 20°x 8 but something bigger than that
and by using my expertly image editing skills (trust iam a pro), it seems like the search area is 30°x8 bars
which increases the search volume by a bit
20° x 8 = 160°
30° x 8 = 240°
240° / 2.65 seconds = ~90.6 deg/s
took the 2.65s from your post
You might be right on that point, would still be less than the Bars in-game, but would be a bit better than western mech scan radars atleast.
search volume would be the biggest in the game tho, for the narrow scan that is
240° x 2° = 480 deg^2
but yeah what matters ingame (especially with esa radars) are more the scan zones and not their scan speed
I dont think its just a bit, thats why Im not too shocked by this result, because the radar is scanning almost at its limit and the mechanical part of the scan is active. I figure if it was just using the electronic scan, those times would drop a lot, Ive heard similar rumors about tests with the gripen Es radar, where scan times went up when the mechanical part was being used, It probably doesnt go up as much as a pesa radar, but its already something people know about
edit: I forgot to mention, but the captor e also has a mechanical part in the radar to boost the scan limits/gimbal and it deals with the same thing, because the radar has to keep the beam on the sector longer to check for any possible margin of error…
(I messed up, I thought Ron had said that this would make the scan time go up) Im a bit tired, sorry
Large search volume isnt really what you want from a narrow scan. Narrow scan should prioritize minimized scan time with maximized scan height. The point of the narrow scan is to quickly find a target in elevation that you’ve already located in azimuth, typically due to an RWR spike.
Id also argue that there is a strong possibility thats more 25° (±12.5°) than 30° wide, which would actually line up with the N011M in-game, and put the scan rate at ~75.47°/s
Its definitly not? The electronic beam steering for the Irbis is like, ±60 deg in both azimuth and elevation iirc. This is WELL below that. There would be no mechanical motion needed in this video.
Claims without sources are borderline worthless. Also, AESA’s can assign a LOT of different beams to unique targets simultaneously unlike PESA, so mechanical motion and beam time on target are irrelevant.
1 Like