They might artificially nerf the patriot range or add new maps, it’s the only way i see these working properly ingame. Either way i’d be pretty satisfied.
Its def an issue, but its not as substantial an issue as its made out to be imo, mostly since as I stated earlier, REDFOR players just tend to be better players in air to air combat.
My whole general points were:
- BLUFOR jets are better in sim
- REDFOR planes arent as bad as ppl pretend they are (ppl act like theyre literally unplayable and total trash)
- Player skill seems to pretty easily make up the difference in air to air, which tends to be why REDFOR pilots on average have better KDR’s than BLUFOR players
- REDFOR players focus air to air very hard and lose because of it
At the end of the day, this is just anecdotal from myself and the other players I play with, so take it with a grain of salt. But ive just never been worried I might miss out on ground strike targets while playing REDFOR, while playing BLUFOR is often a race to objectives.
I cant speak to exact numbers, but I do believe both are overperforming, tho likely not by much. The J-10A is very similar in aerodynamic layout to the Gripen and Rafale, with the performance (afaik) being Gripen → J-10A → Rafale. Modern canard deltas with FBW systems are tremendously well designed aerodynamically. One thing that concerns me is that the J-10A SEEMS to have a very similar EM chart to the numbers ive seen and the described flight profile of an EFT, which it arguably shouldn’t match afaik (different wing/canard set up with significantly lower TWR).
That being said, Im only going off what I understand of some relative differences between certain aerodynamic layouts, so I might be wrong.
During Chinese exercises, Flanker pilots had to take J-10A two-circle (which they could pretty easily win) instead of one-circle. From what I know, instantaneous pull of the J-10A seems correct (supposedly 31 degrees per second max) but it may be overperforming in sustained turn/energy retention.
Thatd make sense, afaik close coupled canard tend to have the advantage in ITR due to their ability to enhance the wing vortices during high AOA and provide more lift (something many planes tend to use close coupled strakes or LERX for). The EFT on the other hand uses long moment arm canards for increased control authority at higher speeds (iirc?). EFT is a dominant 2C fighter (tho also quite capable in 1C) while the rafale (Gripen and J-10 as well by extension) should be very strong 1C fighters. The AMK kit on the EFT is actually to improve the 1C performance via the addition of LERX and larger control surfaces iirc.
Strake (red), LERX from AMK (green):
Vortex formation form a static LERX:
The problem with all canard deltas in the game (currently) is that, since gaijin can’t model unstable aircraft, they can’t really do properly the behaviour of having variable canards + the stabilator at the end of the aircraft. This intrinsically results in a FM that tends to over perform at low speed in energy retention. (irl canards improve airflow in the wings but do negative lift (in front on center of gravity in an unstable aircraft), wings do positive and when elevator pulls it also increases positive lift. In game canards also do positive lift, this makes things basically impossible to do right.
This is an engine limitation that I hope (as an Italian I lowkey hope not lmao) will be fixed when EFT and Rafale come, since with they ridiculous T/W they’d be pretty insane at low speed.
Sorry for going out of topic
3 Likes
tbh, ive seen the actual performance numbers of EFT with its 82kN (so lower TWR)engines and it doesnt need any buffs to be nutts, itll crush everything currently in-game. Its not even close. I fully understand why gaijin hasnt added it yet.
In basically all delta canards canard main use is to increase energy over wings (EFT) included, which basically counters the massive induced drag delta wings normal have. The trade off for this thought is that they create a certain amount of negative lift.
Yep, EFT is an absolute rocket ship airframe wise.
3 Likes
S-300 is modelled already, im surprised it wasnt in the trailer.
1 Like
Not quite sure how the soviet/Russian fighters are gonna compete tbh. Following the fall of the soviet uniion, tech development seems to have fallen off pretty hard. IIR seekers werent really a thing until very recently with the R-74M2 iirc, the R-77-1 just doesnt really keep up with the BLUFOR MRAAM’s, the radars are subpar (ive heard an anecdote that the chinese initially thought the Su-35’s radar was an export model because it performed below their expectations, theres also the famous claim of the Rafale being able to completely brick the Su-35’s radar in egyptian tests). The thrust vectoring will likely help, tho idk if itll make up the difference, and the chinese will just have the superior version of russian jets. I’m not even sure if most/any russian jets get anything more than the HMCS from the original MiG-29/Su-27… They do get the axehead tho, which is all things considered, allegedly quite scary, that might be their only saving grace, but doesnt really fit current WT maps…
There are still the late 90s original soviet pre production (they are too finished to be called prototypes) aircraft that were supposed to be the counterpart to F-16C and F-15C.
Shameless AD: Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29M (9-15) - what the fulcrum would have been
They (MiG-29M, Su-27M, MiG-31M if it ever comes) are quite a bit more capable than what we currently have in game.
After that idk, I am not familiar with post soviet aircraft
5 Likes
Imo the Su-35 and su30sm2 with Irbis e might be able to deal with their western 4th gen counterparts which do not have super low RCS, things will look grim when 5th gen get introduced tho.
1 Like
The Egyptian Rafale tests against the Su-35 are complete nonsense
1 Like
Like I said, the Su-35 allegedly gets straight up bricked by a rafale’s EW. Like, unusable. Im not sure if it had the Irbis E in the egyptian tests, nor am i sure if the claims are true, just like im not sure if the claims the chinese didnt like the radar are true either. I think itll be fine in-game, and gaijin will likely massage it in some way to make it work regardless, I just dont see much that the russian jets will be able to actually have an advantage in vs western counterparts, nor the chinese ones tbh, though theyll never have to face chinese jets.
Yes, I agree.People still continue to believe in a fictional world
5 Likes
They’re mad I pointed out the rage bait and now the people who proclaim to have me blocked are spam reporting my comments. Hilarious.
There is this, of course there are other issues with the FM as well that we need to figure out. Basic dimensional data for the airframe is incorrect as BBCRF has shown us.
7 Likes
The Flanker’s flight model is an unquestionable error, and I don’t know why there was a quarrel over it, let alone why anyone would want to stop the effort to fix the Flanker. Is it because it affects his ability to play the game? That’s all? It’s too selfish.
8 Likes
Really? I’d love to see this.
That is just incorrect? Lmao
They’d need to fix everything across the board to fix the flankers since it’s just broken across the board no matter how you look at it.
It has terrible situational awareness since its radar scan pattern is wrong and takes it something like 8 seconds to complete a scan. Its BVR capabilities are bottom tier since they don’t model the drag on supersonic R-77’s properly. The missiles only have any kind of edge over their opponents at close ranges, but it has a flight model that’s so gimped that it DESPERATELY wants to avoid close range encounters. It’s just pathetic and I’m surprised that gaijin has gone so long doing nothing about any of it. It’s just a sick joke. I can fly the flanker and make a supersonic launch of an R-77 rear aspect at a target 10km away from me and the missile will fall out of the air before it can catch the target. Then I can fly the harrier and just roll my face on the keyboard and slap someone several km straight above me while I’m hovering and flying slightly backwards on the deck for the “can’t lock a stationary harrier” memes. And yet the significantly more potent harrier has a much lower BR for some reason.
8 Likes