so USA copied the Su-7 with FBW and canards from 1968. looking forward for your response.
1 Like
Can they like, add a skin that DOESN’T look like it was left outside since the fall of the Soviet Union?
7 Likes
I’d love that to happen for once, latest flanker releases look like they’ve been forgotten under the sun for a few years -_-
I can understand a bit of weathering, but these look like they’ve been abandoned lol
5 Likes
Like, I get that they don’t want the planes looking squeaky clean, so they weather them a bit, but like…
This is more like “State of Disrepair” as opposed to “Operational Fighter”
Like, at least make it lest rusty…
1 Like
Yep, looks like they use the “museum without funds for renovations” standard for their camos
1 Like
Gaijin be giving their jets the Admiral Kuznetsov care routine.
2 Likes
Cant wait for the Mig-25 release to look like this:
5 Likes
What I mean is, according to my quote, the effectiveness of this IRCCM method decreases with distance to the target. Not sure if that’s actually modeled in the game.
Ah, so it’s just a flying testbed the Soviets used when they tried to copy the XB-70. Got it now. No, your example isn’t really relevant, because that Phantom was used to test improvements to maneuverability. Actually, FBW was already present on the Vigilante - the one from which the Soviets copied the idea of canards, as I mentioned earlier. You get the idea.
do you have any source or was it revealed to you in a dream that soviets copy stuff even when they make it first?
No, rather than reducing the FoV it is simply moving the aircraft to the edge of the FoV so that any flares emitted do not rise to peak brightness before they leave the FoV. iirc this feature is called “push ahead” and should be on the AIM-9M. Obviously this is situational, as it would not be as useful against shoulder mounted countermeasure launchers like on some Russian planes. They’d launch the flares ahead of them in any kind of turn when the missile is launched at their rear… thus still keeping them in FoV even with push-ahead features.
The multi-element seeker simply defers to the fact that the crossed array elements have not one element, but two types so that it may use signaling techniques to track the target with two wavebands. The Magic 2 uses such a feature as well, which should make for good resistance against certain types of flares if they do not match both the skin and the exhaust IR signature or are intense enough to obscure the target.
yes by the nature of how gaijin modeled the r-73 irccm ingame, it is less effective at longer ranges
The R-73’s irccm is properly modeled in-game in regards to how it functions, it is just too large of a FoV. The FoV of both it, and the Magic 2, is much smaller irl. We’re talking like half the size or smaller. The problem is that making it any smaller results in extremely OP missiles and Gaijin has made a balancing decision here.
1 Like
Spoiler
Isn’t it obvious that no one copies directly from anyone else, except in rare isolated cases? Even when it comes to borrowing ideas and concepts, or industrial espionage.
well iam interested how stuff like the IRIS-T will perform on planes with seeker shut-off and fov reduction combined
The IRIS-T features that matter are not the seeker shutoff or the FoV reduction, it uses neither. Instead it uses an imaging system that can determine ejected countermeasures are too small to be the real target, and in the case of obscuration due to mass dumping of flares it can predict target traveling path and ignore the countermeasures or obscuration and lead into targets last known path for re-acquisition. The computers and tracking systems in such missiles are much harder to fool, but not impossible if you can blind it and change direction quickly enough that it cannot re-acquire you.
How they implemented it into the game I suspect is probably far from the real world method of execution.
1 Like
i know how it works IRL
but gaijin modeled the IRIS-T and aim-9x on the new SAMs with seeker shut-off and fov reduction combined instead of IIR
and i think they wont change that for the air launched versions
The air launched versions likely will remain the same, I think they have found the balance they prefer even if it’s total garbage.
Iirc part of why US thought the MiG-25 was a manueverable air superiority fighter is because it appeared similar to the stuff they drew up for the F-15 program early on
The A-5?
Ofc