Kinda, off the top of my head the differences will be:
Honorable mention:
no it is the same
yes
yes by turning both the rudders inwards
also in practice
Gaijin didn’t even add it to the MiG-29KR, I wouldn’t hold my breath on the Su-35 getting it
True, but if the SM2 spherical report goes trough it’ll be worse (in vertical coverage)
Ah nice, I only saw the missile layout on paper, but visual confirmation is indeed better.
i dont see that report getting acted on anytime soon
it will just sit around accepted forever
I’m running out of hopium.
Maybe you’re right.
Which one is it? Quite a few closed ones, can’t find that one.
Wreck footage is out btw, but it’s so unbearably low quality that it makes a 1930 movie look like 8K.
Does anyone have pictures of Soviet flankers outfitted with R-27ETs? I may not be looking hard enough but I can’t find any on them.
probably one of those weird drones we’ve seen before they have a uniquely bad camera
Ah, thanks
Basically the SM2 (at least going from what it is said in the report) has 2 little knobs, one behind the the canopy andthe other under the nose.
It’s hard to prove if those specific knobs are for the RWR, but if they are then their coverage would eliminate the blindspot issue, thing is those extra knobs are not on the Su35.
I know the antenna’s, just was looking for what information the accepted report had
Hello everyone
Looking at the radar database, among those with a positioner, only the N011R(M) and N035 have their ESA update scan (the effective range of TWS ESA) restricted to the values of those without a positioner. The N011 is limited to 90 degrees (±45°), and the N035 to 120 degrees (±60°). The Eurofighter’s ECRS and Gripen’s ES-05 are not subject to this limitation.
Did anyone else notice that after the addition of the Su-30SM2, Gaijin removed the 5% emergencial thrust from the Su-30SM?
i can tell you why
it is bc of the spaghetti code
gaijin is not able or willing to code that in for the EF or Gripen because they have a scan pattern that covers the full azimuth
